• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    When I can get a game on my wishlist for under $20, the time cost of unpacking and patching a game is often more than the value against my bank account.

    Like, sure, if they want $90 for something and I can get it for free, fuck it. Especially if its a re-release of a re-master of a 30 year old classic I already have on a console. But I’m not going to short Owlcat Games or Larian or some other high quality indie studio when its well within my budget and affords me 50-100 hours of original gameplay, easy.

    • Liberal_Ghost@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      I agree with this 100℅ I have no issues sailing the high seas, but not when I would hurt a small indie developer or artist.

    • Lembot_0002@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Testing. I’m talking about the testing. If the game is in your wishlist it doesn’t mean that the game is good.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        Game cracks have their own flaws, especially when you’re running them through an emulator.

        If I’m going to spend the time to make a game properly payable, I’m not going to give up on it and download a fresh new copy after the first few hours of play, even if I do like it.

        I got Wrath of the Righteous for $4. I’m not going to pirate it, demo it, decide i like it, re-download the game, and restart the campaign over a game selling for loose change. I’ll just take my chances.

        Neither am I going to restart Cyberpunk after two hours of tinkering with settings and another fifteen hours of gameplay just to send a company with over $1B in revenue my fist full of quarters.