this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2026
199 points (96.7% liked)

Technology

85695 readers
3875 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] deathbird@mander.xyz 2 points 17 minutes ago

Well no but also yes.

An Atari 2600 was $160 in 1979. Cartridges were $25-40. Adjust for inflation and that's $738.56 for a console and $115-184 per cartridge.

Also minimum wage was $2.90 ($13.39). Median family income was $19,660 ($90,750.94).

And it was new tech.

So the prices have come down. There are a lot of amazing games that are cheap that you can play basically forever. Minecraft, Dead Cells, Skyrim, etc.

But our expectations have risen while our wages have come down.

So not wrong, but not right for the reasons you'd assume.

[–] BurgerBaron@quokk.au 1 points 9 minutes ago

Perhaps making one game per decade is a losing strategy.

[–] bigbangdangler@reddthat.com 12 points 2 hours ago

These people only care now because it's actually affecting the bottom line.

Did they care when AAA pricing was lifted to $70 (base) as AAA quality took a nosedive? Did they care when "preordering" turned into "premium"? Did they care when microtransactions made some games into spend-to-win machines?

Hell, most of these clowns don't even play games. Just more rich people putting on the hat they think they need to get away with a "hello, fellow gamers."

Maybe the industry has a C-suite crisis.

[–] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

It’s interesting how people are finally starting to notice after being told for years this will all eventually come to a head.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 15 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Why would I pay $70 for shit that's super watered down to appeal to the lowest common denominator when I could pay $20-40 for something made with real passion?

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

There's that passive voice, striking again

[–] PromKingJosh@tarte.nuage-libre.fr 48 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

"People are buying indie games instead and I'm not happy about it"

[–] deathbird@mander.xyz 1 points 16 minutes ago

It's not: "Gaming is unaffordable." it's "People aren't willing to give us more money."

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 9 points 2 hours ago

Not just indie games, every game. Every new game is in competition with every other game in existence. It’s a battle for recognition and attention, winners take all. Brutal situation.

Same goes for books, movies, TV, music.

[–] glockenspiel@lemmy.world -2 points 3 hours ago

I seriously wonder if more competent mobile gaming picks up some of the slack considering the “retro emulator” machines are starting to run PC games via Game Native app. If i didn't already have a steam deck i would seriously consider one of those devices.

I’m not convinced that we are going to see a renewed push for optimization. I think streaming will be aggressively pushed with low time limits in the forthcoming next gen to “make it affordable.” Xbox was ahead of the curve in that regard.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 21 points 5 hours ago (1 children)
[–] SharkAttak@kbin.melroy.org 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)
[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Paying these prices is bullshit, you see!

They don't deserve all your hard-earned money!

Come be a pirate!

[–] Beetschnapps@lemmy.world 58 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

Whose decision was it to charge 70-80 usd for a game?

Whose ai investments are buying up all the ram, gpus, and ssds?

Not consumers’…

[–] ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 1 points 15 minutes ago

And don't forget, everything is digital now, so that $80 game that you've completed in 2 weeks can't be traded for any secondary value.

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 7 points 5 hours ago

Seriously. These CEOs need to get their heads out of their asses and open their eyes. My gaming PC is from 2019. My newest machine is lower power than that. A steam deck. And they've ruined the steam machine pricing too.

AAA games cost a lot, use basically all the same formulas from the past decade or two, and are expensive to make. They need to target less lofty graphics if they want to sell more copies. Less and less can afford bleeding edge hardware. Now is the time to double down in quality instead of fancy graphics. And this is why they're losing and indies are thriving.

[–] TimothyOilypants@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Still a screamin deal as far as $ per hour of entertainment.

Adjusted for inflation, I paid ~$125.00 CAD for The Legend of Zelda when it launched on NES... For an 8 hr game...

The scale and quality of content delivered today is LIGHT YEARS ahead, and frankly, still the best value proposition in any entertainment media.

[–] Mondez@lemdro.id 2 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

That fails to take into account the fact that the gaming was a niche hobby that wasn't particularly accessible in part due to prices. Given the far far larger market for games and the greater competition for gamer attention you would expect prices to come down.

Prices are set base on what the market is believed to be able to bare however so value per hr or cost to develop are somewhat incidental to the monetisation of a game.

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Prices for games have stayed constant for 35 years. Can you think of anything else that has stayed the same price in that time frame?

[–] relativelyrobin@mander.xyz 2 points 2 hours ago

For real. Nintendo 64 was not a niche hobby, and the games were still 70 to 80 bucks. That’s like $160 in today dollars. It shows, too. We got all this technology, but the care, polish, attention just isn’t there.

[–] TimothyOilypants@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 hours ago

That's sort of my point... Prices are WAY down. Lower than they have EVER been. $125 for an 8 hr. game. What would that cost today?

[–] fartographer@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

It's like they're catching onto why the urban legend about drug dealers intentionally poisoning their customers is bullshit. Turns out your sales go down when people can't buy your product.

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 32 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I mean, unless you play the last four decades of games in emulation... or the couple hundred thousand indie games on steam... or the other few hundred thousand mobile games or...

Oh, you mean your company profits are in crisis. Yeah. Good.

[–] TimothyOilypants@lemmy.ca 9 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

The amount of money the industry blows chasing PR with the tiniest minority of whiny "core gamers" is going to be the downfall of AAA.

The problem is that investors are brain-dead, so Forbes picking up on negative sentiment from 500 neckbeards can legitimately tank a publicly traded publishers stock.

The vast, vast, VAST majority of gamers don't identify as gamers, don't play 50 titles a year, and sure as hell don't engage with gaming media or online discourse about gaming. 95% of games industry revenue is coming from people who don't give a shit about gamer "hot button topics".

The problem, like with most industries, is the speculative commodification of the companies themselves instead of just their products.

[–] StillAlive@piefed.world 41 points 8 hours ago
[–] godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 37 points 8 hours ago

Well Asha, maybe you should talk to your boss Slopya about that AI problem that's raising prices on everything.

[–] DFX4509B@lemmy.wtf 121 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (6 children)

That CEO has no room to talk about gaming being unaffordable and the industry ignoring the signs, when it's that very industry that made it unaffordable to begin with.

You can't claim ignorance of a problem you and your industry directly caused, Asha. You're as complicit in this as the industry you're saying is ignoring warning signs.

That's like if I broke a stick in half in front of a bunch of people, and then tried to say I didn't break that stick, when everyone saw me break that stick. Stupid analogy, I know, but that's basically what Asha is trying to pull here.

[–] CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world 41 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

Hehe “Gaming has become unaffordable”. Continues to buy ram and other component capacity for AI data centers, while actively enshittifying every single game with microtransactions and forced game as a service bullshit. driving customers to increasingly purchase cheaper indie titles that are actually fun.

“Whatever can we do to fix this problem? “ <lays off veteran team so the shareholders can make 5 more Pennie’s a share, causing talent to look at different industries where they aren’t laid off every 2 years, causing every game to be made by devs fresh out of college>.

“This industry isn’t profitable anymore!”

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] brillotti@lemmy.world 19 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Gaming studios have the choice to make stylized visuals instead of chasing hyper realism. They just choose not to.

[–] PlasticExistence@lemmy.world 13 points 7 hours ago

Stylized games always age best

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 44 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

All the wealth is being concentrated in the hands of too few people. I'm not going to buy a $120 game when my salary is down, or I'm just laid off.

[–] Cherry@piefed.social 13 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Problem is becoming a platform where you cant just buy the game anymore. You can obtain a digital licence that they can revoke at any time. So it’s more rent the game. And the price is up. And they have interfered with the studio and development. Plus you also have to pay for gamepass to even launch the game you ‘paid’ for.

[–] CluckN@lemmy.world 10 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

This feels like a setup so they can present, “cloud gaming” as a solution. That way they can sell cheap hardware and yearly subscriptions for consistent revenue.

[–] Flower@sh.itjust.works 8 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (2 children)

Reminds me of the Sim City 4 launch. The game was always online. People couldn't play it because their servers couldn't handle the load. One hiccup in the connection or servers and you're out of the game. It was single player but you couldn't play on laptop on a train, or plane.

It's a not good experience. And if things are like with Stradia you still have to buy the full game and pay the subscription for access. And because you're paying a subscription, people try to get their money's worth. That goes against the profit model that assumes you pay full price but only game a few hours per week. So companies start limiting hours per day, add premium tiers, that kind of thing. That'll cause a lot of resistance, especially with the young crowd with no money but lots of time.

[–] ZeroPoke@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago

I think you are confusing SimCitys. SimCity 4 came out in 2003. Where there was a SimCity that came out in 2013 that had had those issues. I got a free game out of it, BF3 maybe. But imma be real I don't remember the SimCity 4 launch, I do recall the SimCity 2013 launched and it was bad. Haven't bought an EA game since.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mintiefresh@piefed.ca 52 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Maybe if they would stop burning through all the RAM and shoving AI down our throats...

[–] Cherry@piefed.social 15 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

I’m surprised they haven’t come up with a mandatory paid service where AI finishes your game for you. Just pay for the device. Pay for the game. Pay for online access. Pay for the mods. Pay AI to finish the game…Pay extra for a summary of your achievement's.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 14 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (2 children)

There was an article like a month ago about an AI assistant to play the hard parts for you.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] tirateimas@lemmy.pt 12 points 9 hours ago

There have an amazing catalog of affordable games that were launched over the last 25 years (or more). There's a lifetime of fun available. Gamers may chose to play those, instead of the over expensive new games or worse, subscriptions.

[–] 13igTyme@piefed.social 5 points 8 hours ago

Plenty of good indie or AA games with low system requirements.

[–] PushButton@lemmy.world 5 points 8 hours ago

Or, you know, do something else than incrementing the version number on your old games while adding nothing new.

Same old games, at a higher price, this might just not cut it.

In the meantime, the Indie games are flourishing.

That's what the industry has to say, Mr. The CEO... Open your eyes.

-- Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 19 points 11 hours ago

Every industry has an accessibility crisis. Lazy MBAs don't want to sell products that appeal to everyone if they can sell products that only appeal to rich people with less effort.

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 13 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

Ultimately AI is an unaffordable industry. It'll crash in time, and there'll hopefully be a whole lot of price drops on ram, graphics, etc. People will not want to stop playing games. The industry has had crashes before and always bounced back bigger than ever.

It will be bad for whoever's economy is most dependent on it though.. And any businesses really heavily invested in it. Won't it, Microsoft.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›