It means Sony has the rights to make X-men games, not that they won't be on PC. And they can still license X-men characters in other games, as well, provided they aren't exclusive to platforms that aren't playstation.
It will launch on PS first, but this doesn't tell you anything about whether they'll bring it to PC, which is what the title implied and the person I responded to read it as.
Incorrect. Sony owns the Spider-Man IP movie rights, this is not the case for video games. Marvel's Avengers would not have been able to put him in the game if that were the case.
edit: Maybe wrong on the Marvel's Avengers game front as I forgot he was a playstation exclusive character for the game, but Sony still does not own ALL spider-man rights, but specifically movie rights.
I rather like what he said. It is completely reasonable in my opinion.
Here is his full response:
“Yes, no f**king shit, I make games for a living,” he said. “If I didn’t want to earn money from them I wouldn’t charge money for them. I like the business model of ‘I want money so I make something that I think is worth money, and you pay me that money and you get the thing, and we’re all happy’ That’s it. There’s nothing complicated or hidden here.”
“If you don’t think the things I make are worth the money I charge, that’s completely ok,” he added. “Don’t buy them, or wait for a deep sale, or go the sneaky route and get them for free or whatever, and please tell me that so I can adjust the prices for whatever I release next.”
I mean, this is kind of a scummy thing to say. Nobody really would have cared about an increase to $8 from $6 for the game, but a person with the attitude that this developer has by saying what they said will probably not be conducive to getting more sales. Should have just not said anything.
People are so used to being lied to that they get angry when you tell them the truth instead, even though they already knew the truth.
I’m half joking, though. Part of what makes society work is all the things we do to put a nice facade on things that are ugly. If we all went around telling the hard truth all the time, everyone would be angry at everyone.
All that said… Basically saying “I underpriced the product of my hard work and I’m correcting that” shouldn’t be that shocking. Especially when tempered with “Go pirate it if you want”.
I get what youre saying but to me there is far too much sugarcoating today. I much prefer being a bit more honest. That doesnt mean be an asshole though.
Would you feel better if he blamed inflation and Covid and the evergrande supply chain issues like every other business on this planet? And they’ve doubled and tripled their prices. He only increased his by 33%
He's effectively trying to get a raise. I don't see this any different from asking a raise from your boss at work. I mean, if you don't want more money from work, that's your problem, not his.
I dont have a problem with him wanting more money, it’s just his incredibly abbrasive attitude. How he said what he said just comes off as needlessly rude. If he had just raised the price without saying anything, people probably wouldn’t even bat an eye. I mean, its $2.
To say “well pirate it then” is just aggressive without cause. Thats something you say when you raise the price from $6 to $60. Not for a $2 increase. Unless you have a chip on your shoulder/ incredibly abbrasive personality.
Well shit. I hadn’t watched him since back when he was supposed to be taking a break from YouTube to try to deal with his struggles with alcohol. Sad to hear he passed on. Hope his loved ones are holding on through all of this.
Not knowing anything about the game, $8 for a PC game is not unreasonable, though raising the price after the fact is a little questionable and it sounds like the dev mispriced his original creation and is trying to correct for that. Though, if he had called it “early-access” and then doubled the price it would just be accepted as normal.
And get 4x as much runtime. But it’s not apples to apples; movies aren’t interactive, and I’ve spent way more on games that weren’t worth either their price or the time to play them through to the end.
Those generally have better quality/effort. Most of these cheap horror experience games look absolutely terrible (and wouldve 20 years ago as well) and last an hour at most of you aren’t brain-dead. At least a movie is generally two hours
I mean, it can be argued that games depreciating their value overtime is not a natural phenomenon set in stone, but rather a way to squeeze more sales out of the product once it stops being the latest, hypest thing, and everyone who really wanted it already has it.
If you accept that, then it is not hard to accept the opposite: a game that starts not being the hypest thing, and thus needs to start at a low price because nobody really wants it; but then becomes the hypest thing due to some unforeseen factor (in this case, getting a movie based on the game), and thus appreciates in value because people now really want it.
From that perspective, I honestly don't see an issue with it, it's just staying consistent with the rules that give us lower priced sales in the first place, this is just the rare situation in which it works the other way around.
I’m pretty sure the price of the other From Software games (Dark Souls titles especially) went up after Elden Ring got super popular. And I know my interest in them did as well (I’d only played DS1 prior). Seems like a reasonable market reaction to demand, but damn there went my hopes of getting them cheap for my patience lol
On the opposite end there are games like Terraria which was inexpensive from the start and in bundles and everything but grew to like 10x it’s original scope, I think somehow without a major price bump.
pcgaming
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.