Epic Games Store

Apparently, according to Ubisoft forum post, they will give the rewards to everyone for free without needing to log in.

Yea, I hate the whole seasons concept as well. It only really makes sense in the context of a F2P game that sells a season pass, and even then, I only really tolerate it, not actually like it, because the game is free.

this is a rare common sense take in video gaming fandom.  Please have star.

If you’re standing on the second to last rung on a ladder, it may seem like it makes sense to take that last step up onto the “Not a Step” platform at the top. It’s a ladder, after all! You’re meant to climb ladders!

That’s market conditioning in a nutshell: Get the consumer accustomed to paying a certain price and never change it. Though their reasoning is understandable to a degree; they can’t under-cut the physical retail price because the brick-and-mortar stores would stop buying, which is partly what happened to PC games.

This is a bad take. Games cost the same as they did 20 years ago because the cost of technology gets cheaper as it advances. 20 years ago an HD tv ran ya $1,000+ and would be trash by today’s standards. Now you can get a pretty solid one for $300 - $400. DLC is a scam and companies that bend you over for it after you…

I don’t understand this argument.

If game sales had stayed static to the 90s- this would be true.

I’m pretty sure Doom and Wolfenstein and Far Cry and Dark Souls and Control and Final Fantasy and Civilization and probably dozens of other $60 games without MTX are doing juuuuust fine at their current price point. And that’s not counting the many super successful $60 first party games. The studios that are stuffing…

Just to note, at $60, if a game sells one million units, then it’ll make almost $60 million in revenue. If a game sells 5 million units, that’s over $300 million, not counting Special Editions or DLC or micro-transactions.

You’re right, the customer should not be punished by having to pay full retail price for a game that’s stored on a server. This is simple market conditioning. It costs them very little to “publish” a game, so it should cost us less to access it. The only ones who benefit are Bobby Kotic and his peers.

It’s more complex than that though. The NES and all the cartridge based systems had substantial per unit hardware costs because storage was very expensive. Since then games moved to cheaper disc based storage and then to today where most games are delivered digitally. Extras like game manuals and maps/posters,…

If they’re gonna start pushing those prices they need to start listening to what gamers want. No more in-game purchases and loot boxes, no more mutliplayer in games that don’t need it, no more console exclusivity on third party games, no more DLC content that should have been in the game, restructuring of the way DLC…

“the hightened cost of development” is bull, to be honest. As the tools devs use to make games, especially art tools, become more advanced, they also become much easier to use and the skill-level barrier for entry for any games artist is much, much lower than it was 15 years ago. Don’t believe me? Google quixel…

Hot takes: Games were overpriced for much of their existence. Publishers have driven up the price of development, not the market. Developers — the actual people working on the games — are about as likely to benefit from the inevitable price hike as consumers are.

Why is she automatically the victim? He was clearly put off by her initial statement. If a random male messaged a random female talking about BDSM, he would be most likely labeled a creep.

Which is funny, because they all got real shitty on desktop a while back when they tried to optimize everything for mobile! And the ads on desktop have gotten even worse! G/O just gonna ride this thing til the wheels fall off. I hope the few writers still left on staff are looking for other employment opportunities.

If you can get a hold of a switch unless you are okay with paying over 2x the market asking price.