“Interest in Star Wars Jedi Survivor has decreased since release, which means it’s a bad game.”

“Interest in Tears of the Kingdom has decreased since release, which means it’s a bad game.”

Do we see how stupid this looks now?

Like, it’s a mediocre bloated open world game. And those are a dime a dozen. But the hate boner…

It’s a single-player RPG with no DLC plans. Why would the player count matter six months after its release?

I 100% completed it in under a month and moved on. That’s all I ask of a single player experience. No one is playing God of War Ragnarök or Horizon Forbidden West either anymore.

You got my click, but not my respect.  Shame that you’ve circled back to the corpse to try to get a few more heartbeats out of it.

Y’all need to let it go. It’s surprising to no one that a single player RPG with no content extending DLC has dropped off.

Imagine writing something like that about Resident Evil 4 (released a month later). With ~2,400 players in-game and complaining about constantly replaying the 6-7 hour campaing, shootouts that get stale after the seventh replay, and waiting for possible DLC.

That would be stupid as hell since it’s just a single player…

Lol it’s a single player game that came out like 6 months ago??? This is one of the silliest takes I’ve seen in a while.

Imagine hating a woman so much you write an article about how no one’s playing a single player RPG 6 months later.

It’s a single player story-driven game not a live service and it’s been out for 7ish months now. Yes. Nobody played the video game that sold more copies than any other video game in perhaps the best year in video game history. I know Kotaku has an axe to grind because of JK but jesus fucking christ this shit just…

Yup. I didn’t pick up Hogwarts, because it’s not the kind of thing I wanted to put money towards, but this is such an inane article. Shocking news: single player RPG isn’t a live-service game!

It’s a single player RPG, and like the headline says it’s been 6 months after release with several high profile games that have launched in the interim and soaked up the limelight.

Kovarik reminds me of Cleveland Blakemore and Nicholas Gorissen - all three of them are right-wing psychos with awful opinions they seem insistent on voicing loudly. Two of them (Blakemore and Kovarik) follow the usual conservative hallmark of not having a clue how economics works and stubbornly insisting their game…

Exactly. If you already own a thing that is a one-time purchase, future price increases are not your problem.

Nintendo games go on sale all the time though, and have since the Wii era. It’s just a seasonal thing and never below $40ish for their first party stuff.

”Do you only buy games years after they release to understand how the publisher will treat that game?”

Yep. It’s a backwards sale in a certain sense. They know it’ll never go on sale, but it WILL go up in price. If you want it, get it while you can save $5 bucks. They’ll get a sales surge over the next week, but as many others have said. The people who want this game already have it because they know it never goes on…

As someone who mostly only buys games on sale, I don’t care about the company’s revenue goal, I only care about mine, which is to save money. Sure a game might be worth its 30 dollars, but there are other 30 dollar games that are just as good that DO go on sale.

It seems pretty simple to me. Seems like $30 is too high of a price point for this particular game to them, and if they are never going to put it on sale then it will never be at a price low enough for them to think it is worth picking up.

No, I think I understand their point. The demand curve for any normal good is a slope; demand goes up as price goes down. They’ve decided that the revenue under the long tail of the curve isn’t worth their time.

My roster of unplayed games (you call it a backlog, I call it a retirement plan) is in triple digits. I’ve bought exactly two of those games at full price.