654
$6.2B in profit wasn't enough: Nvidia hikes GeForce Now prices for Canada and Europe
(www.theregister.com)
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
654 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
59151 readers
3230 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I can still boot up games I've owned since the age of 5 or games on steam that lost their licensing like Prey (2006) or some Lego games, come back to me next month when you can't play Persona 5 Royal as it's getting pulled due to licensing. Time and time again, subscription models are great value until a point where the market share is big enough and the user base is invested enough that the price gets hiked. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't make me delusional, and frankly that was a pretty rude comment.
I'm very skeptical that you're describing the majority, let alone vast.
That's a fair assesment. But what's the ratio games that you actually go back to compared to the amount of games you own in total? Unless you only play very few games, the amount of games a person owns vastly outnumbers the games they actually go back and play multiple times. Just looking at my steam library, I own hundreds of games I've completed once and have never touched again along with about 2 dozen I actually go back and play occasionally.
But you're still playing all the games you had as a kid? 10 games a year adds up pretty fast when we're talking about still wanting to play them all years later.
I don't think the "actually finish games" was the unlikely thing about what he said
That "only worth playing once" thing only applies to story heavy, fixed map, pure single-player games, which are mainly a sub-set of AAA games, typically on consoles.
(Or multiplayer games when somebody only plays those games were their friends are, so the game stops being fun if most of their friends aren't there anymore, so naturally such people never get back to those)
Further, even amongst that kind of game, some are so good that they're fun again to play after some time (though it usually takes a couple of years to forget enough of the details for it to be fun again). For example, Fallout 3.
Methinks you're a very young gamer, who is mainly fad driven hence buys the same AAA games as his friends and doesn't buy indie games (which is where you'll find the most replayable games of all, as indies often have generated maps since they can't afford to spend millions of dollars on people doing level design) so yeah, all you've ever seen is games that are only fun once or for a very limited time period.
Youthfullness would also explain why you confuse your own behaviour with "the vast majority of the gaming community". (Which is extra funny because the average age of gamers nowadays is somewhere in the mid 30s).
I would be seriously surprised if you were an older gamer as they're more likely to buy games for their fun factor - not fashionability amongst peers or last gen graphics - hence sooner or later end up playing some indie game or other with generated maps, plus are much more likely to have picked up again some game they played and finished years ago and still fondly remember, just to discover it's actually fun again.
Let's not gatekeep "real gamers".
You should also read his comment again. He is not saying that a game is only worth playing once because the story or game is linear. Although no sources are cited, he is probably right that a fair percentage of people pick up a game and drop it soon after because it wasn't what they thought it would be or any number of other reasons.
Even if you are an indie gamer, the sheer number of indie games that come out each year is overwhelming, and again a lot are not super polished so you can probably also see people picking it up, playing it, not being impressed and then dropping the game.
So why spend $10 a pop per game when you can pay for one month and enjoy many of them?
There is no need to be materialistic. Yes there are games you will want to go back to in a few years or take your time with, but there are many many games that you may never touch again. If you think this is a minority opinion, check out some Steam stats. I think they support OPs argument.
There are also reasons subscription based models can and do suck, there is a reason they are popular.
Yeah, ok.
That is indeed a different view of that post which makes sense.
yeah personally I dont like the subscription model and wished more people setup their own server at home to stream their own plex and stream their own steam-headless or virtual machines but that just isnt realistic and people love thier streamed content more and more. Just look at me Im talking through you from a virtual machine on my server VPN'd from my phone connected to a monitor and keyboard. I dont carry a laptop anymore I just plug my phone in at work or at home and just use parsec
Well, somebody else provided a different take on what you meant (which is that people try and ditch lots of games which are shit, only settling down with some good ones) that makes sense.
Personally that's not how I do it (I would rather not waste time and trying tons of games if free), but that's me and I'm not going to claim that's how most people go about consuming games (I doubt it is, to be fair).