Games that cost $30 typically don't have:
- Crazy intensive graphics that no one can run
- Performance-reducing DRM
- online-only requirements
- pop-up ads for microtransactions every 3 minutes
- required third party accounts and/or launchers
- Day 1 DLC
this post was submitted on 06 May 2026
241 points (99.2% liked)
PC Master Race
21096 readers
368 users here now
A community for PC Master Race.
Rules:
- No bigotry: Including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No NSFW content.
- No Ads / Spamming.
- Be thoughtful and helpful: especially when new beginners have questions.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Pretty much nailed why I almost exclusively play Indies these days. That and spyware that calls itself anti-cheat rarely working on my OS, thank God.
Yea, they may have dlc.
It's not complicated, games journalists. C O M P E T I T I O N. PC gaming has a history of offering gamers choice. Even if you argue that Steam is a de facto monopoly (I don't agree with this), people still have the choice of GOG.com, Epic, and more. You can't say the same about walled-garden digital storefronts like Xbox, Sony, and Nintendo.
And the fact that Valve doesn't currently abuse their customers means they stick with Steam. It means consumers don't have to pay sky-high prices if they don't want to, and also that indie companies can still compete and succeed...
Honestly, the games I’ve enjoyed and played the most have cost around $20 or less. BOTW and TOTK being notable exceptions. But the hours of enjoyment from those is also really high. One game card, three players, hundreds of hours. But AAA? Not for me. Same with subscription MMO. I used to love wow, but now it’s just a pretty set of chores that I don’t wanna pay for every month when I could buy another game cheaper.
I find this to be true, the few new games I bought over the last year were around $25.
I have to really like the series or developer to pay $60+ for games, I think the last $60 game I bought was Starfield.
I'm considering Forza Horizon 6 but can't get past the $70 price. I am selling some of my most valuable Steam trading cards to soften the blow.
We have kind of plateaued in terms of game graphics. We can go higher but it's expensive in terms of hardware and electricity. Games are supposed to be fun and challenging.
I keep recalling this comparison:
We’ve long since reached “good enough” graphics, and incremental improvements are simply not going to be noticeable.
This is probably why so many game releases this console generation have been remasters.
It's a good examples but geometry isn't everything
It applies to every aspect of game design, not just geometry: texture resolution, lighting, audio fidelity, enemy AI.
It’s just that geometry happens to be the easiest to use as an example.
Of course
I feel like there has been a lot of regressions in enemy AI and physics over the years.
I can still imagine a lot more physics in my games.
But I agree on the rest yeah.
Definitely, we're at a point where geometry isn't a key factor in rendering times - at least for a decently optimized game (I'm looking at you, Cities Skylines 2 and all your teeth).
Games are going ham with the lighting - ray tracing and all that jazz that help with photorealism.
There are workarounds that have been used for a long time to "mimic" these effects but with a big quality Vs speed trade-off. Since computational power is now so cheap (or used to, before ai...) they're removing those crutches and using techniques that give better results, but it's definitely marginal improvements.
This is facts. I have a PC that can handle just about anything I throw at it in terms of graphics (aside from Control, that game is the devil for some reason), and so I don't bother with "how cool does this look." I want to know how well it plays. Not just the FPS I can expect, but the gameplay.
I think that's the difference between console and PC. Consoles are still about "Look how much we can squeeze out of a PS5." PCs don't have that problem anymore. We know what we can get. We want to play the fucking game now. I think you don't need to look further than the Steam Controller launch. We are so hungry for New that we'll destroy and entire storefront for a $100 controller. No one is burning the Sony servers for the PS Remote Play.
Granted, it's a fucking awesome controller.
Consoles need to innovate more but instead all we get now is a "pro" model :(
PC tends to have more games that cost less than $30 at launch.
Why would I pay £80-£100 for a broken-ass bag of hickory smoked goat anus, when I could pay £15-£45 for a really decent indie offering with a tight, properly thought out game loop, and free content in future updates?
Hickory smoked is so crazy!
I don't know who all needs to hear this, but the phrases "tight" and "goat anus" need to be separated by at least one sentence. It's the law.
I basically don't buy any game until it's about 30 quid or less, with maybe one exception every couple of years
If they release a game at that price they'll get the sale early, if they release at 60, I'm waiting for a sale with a deep discount
nobody wants 60-70$ games that are probably halfassed +30$ DLCs.
I make an exception for Elden ring, but ya, generally that shits trash.
I would argue it's because AAA games are fairly generic for the most part. And enthusiasts (which I imagine a much higher percentage of PC gamers are) want something more unique to our tastes which we're more likely to find in Indy games.
At least that's true for me.
Haha steam sale go brrrrr Also gog sale
And we also never play them lol
That PC games tend to be cheaper (or even: the same games on PC, are cheaper) has been public knowledge for a long time.
The fact that now we are seeing pieces like this, at a time when console gaming seems to be falling away, is both unsurprising and expected.