Hacker News Reader

Comment by cairo_x | Hacker News Reader

It seems like every time there's a new game I need a new goddamned computer. And then the game is like 90 bucks!? Where's the fun in that? They are games, not god damned niche specialty hobbies. Imagine if films, or music, or books were like that? It's ludicrous. I guess it's a different thing, but damn. Computing has managed to become affordable, while gaming has become a hobby for the middle-classes, like skiing, or yacht racing, or formula one. It's like a vomitorium of the senses, and a lot of it is not particularly inspiring.

View on HN

> a new goddamned computer

I haven't touched a single component in ~4 years and AAA games still work great on medium-high settings. Heck, despite tons of warnings from Oculus, the hardware also adequately drives a DK2 in less intensive apps. Are you referring to laptops?

> not particularly inspiring

I've almost given up on AAA games. I get almost everything off GoG these days because I've found that the price of a game is generally inversely proportional to the quality of the game. Get off the hype train, there are tons of very inspired titles out there (The Witness, Modded Minecraft, Undertale, Factorio, Dungeons 2, etc.).

I only consider AAA tiles after they've lived up to critical and fan scrutiny for a least a month or two, additionally, I have to be specifically looking for a title that offers the "same shit, different day." CoD barely changes year-to-year but yet it sells like hotcakes. That's the market that AAA developers service, don't limit yourself to that market if you are finding that it's inadequate.

> It seems like every time there's a new game I need a new goddamned computer.

Shiny new games come out about every other week. A nice computer should play every one of them well for many years.

> And then the game is like 90 bucks!? Where's the fun in that?

90 bucks? Do you live in Australia? (fair enough) Do you feel compelled to buy the collector's/deluxe edition of every game? (don't)

Ever heard of Steam sales? Or indie games? Or Humble Bundles? Like zamalek said, ignore the hype and marketing. Get games after a year or so when the prices have come down. If said game is actually good, people will still be talking about it.

> Imagine if films, or music, or books were like that? It's ludicrous.

A good game is enjoyed for over 10 hours. A great one might be at least 50. Imagine listening or watching any other media for that long of a time. You'd likely be bored or insane. You can get ludicrous value per hour gaming very easily.

> It's like a vomitorium of the senses, and a lot of it is not particularly inspiring.

Indie games are maybe $20 each, and tend not to be your copy-paste $90 shooty-fest.

I have to reinforce something you said:

> A good game _is enjoyed_ for over 10 hours. A great one might be at least 50.

This is not about the game length/duration. It's its lasting appeal. The game I most consistently replay (and that I consider the best game ever) is the original Portal, a 4 hour game.

Yes, indeed. Portal is great. But when I wrote that, I was thinking more about open worlds and multiplayer games where game length is entirely irrelevant, and you can easily play hundreds of hours without realizing it.

Open world is a mixed bag. Some of my favourite games are open world and I love exploring game worlds. But the current trend of making every single game open-world usually backfires.

I'd reather have a carefully designed closed spaced with backtracking (Metal Gear Solid, Metroidvanias) that an open world with a dozen of hand-designed places.

The biggest contrast I found was between Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. In the former you are contantly traversing the old places and trying out stuff with your new abilities. On the latter, you just fly in a straight line to your objective. AA is better at gauging your curiosity while in AC, you must actively explore stuff.

For ten hours I could read a Song of Ice and Fire, which the author took a shit-ton of years to write, and which is still being written. One of those books will cost me 7.45 on a kindle. I could easily get ten hours for the fraction of the price of say -- the new Doom, which costs 86 dollars on top of the hardware I don't have to play it.

The best gaming experiences always had effort put in to story and character, which doesn't cost anything compared to cutting edge fidelity. High fidelity is not required AT ALL to convey either emotion or story. Fidelity is... Do you remember reel to reel music Albums? No? Because they were a waste of money, and time, and completely unnecessary. How about 60fps film? DV? Shit. All awful awful shit anti-art.

Here's the thing. The best ,most engaging content is always simulacrum. It is not simulation. It is supposed to tell a story and evoke a feeling. Over production kills character in just about every sense the human mind can pick up. I always prefer impressionism over realism, because -- what's the point? I could just go outside and live my life, or go paint-balling. Art is supposed to be hyper-real, which means a simulation of life will always end up second best to a great simulacrum -- something which is only required to represent with style and evocation of feelings. Like a book, it forces our minds to invest in the process of suspension of disbelief. All fidelity gives is resolution. Above a certain threshold fidelity is completely irrelevant.

>It seems like every time there's a new game I need a new goddamned computer

That's what consoles are for :-)

Edit: This isn't supposed to be a snarky "console masterrace" comment, but merely the observation that consoles have fixed specs and a life-cycle of five or more years where you can play current games without having to buy new hardware. (I don't even own any consoles, unless you count emulators.)

Or future-proofing your PC by not buying low/mid end parts. Spending an extra $400 when building so you can keep the PC for 4-6+ years instead of 1-2 years. If you don't mind playing games on "low/mid" console-equivalent graphics this isn't even necessary except for the most poorly optimized games. Unless you want to be playing the newest games on max/ultra settings and expect 60+fps at all times you will not need to buy new hardware or even the highest-end hardware at anywhere near that rate.

Unless you're buying a $350 Facebook-browsing machine to game on the lowest settings - you will not need to upgrade every 1-2 years to run games.

You lack the option to play the newest games at max/ultra settings at 60+ fps on consoles. Because the options simply don't exist and you can't update the hardware to allow for it. You get 30fps and med/med-high graphics at best.

waves a regal hand Why don't you simply buy a better machine?

So... Let them eat cake?

This is not an argument, it's obvious. Many of us are living on the edge as it is, and there are plenty of great games we can play, but games that are not fidelity backwards compatible lock out a class.

This is not that big of a deal -- its not like they're uni-text books or anything -- but it's similar territory. It's an excuse to bump up the price with the added insult to injury that you can't even steal the game cause you plebs wouldn't even have the hardware.

Unlike certain aspects of life where certain "necessities" end up costing more because they need to be purchased every so often and people who can afford to purchase in bulk or purchase higher quality end up spending less over time, entertainment is something which can be done on a budget.

Option A:

    Year 1: Buy $400 machine
    Year 2: Buy a new $400 machine
    Year 3: Buy a new $400 machine
    Total Cost: $1,200

Option B:

    Year 1: Buy nothing
    Year 2: Buy nothing
    Year 3: Buy $1,200 machine that will last the next 4-6 years, effectively saving $1,600-$2,400 in the process. 
    Total Cost: $1,200

I did Option B. Except it took four years - and it would have taken five years if I wasn't fortunate enough to get a better paying job during that time. Catch up on backlog of previous 2 years worth of games over time and, very likely, at a cheaper cost since they are now "dated" (saving even more money)

Instant gratification is not necessary - and learning how to avoid it often leads to making better investments.

Wow. If only people knew. Just get a better job and save for four years. Goes back to my original point, doesn't it?

You are essentially agreeing with me, because these are the exact measures most must go through -- only things don't always work out like that. Your computer breaks. You lose a job. You have to pay for other crap. Trade off after trade off for a game that cost the same as a big budget film. It's ludicrous.

They simply cannot afford a $350 computer each year if they cannot afford a $1,200 computer after {3 + n} years. Period. Full stop. There is no way they can spend more money but be incapable of spending less money if they're able to spend that money at all. That isn't how money works. If you don't have enough to spend less - you simply cannot afford to spend more than that. If they can (barely) afford a $350 machine each year, they aren't the level of poor you're trying to talk about. You're talking about people who can't even afford the $350 machine.

We aren't talking about how someone with more money initially has the privilege of spending less money over time (eg: the "better boots" scenario)

Getting a better job did speed things up a year but wasn't necessary. Which doesn't go back to your original point, at all. I had no problem with waiting five years for a decent computer if that had to be the case.

What are you on about? Stop straw manning me. When did I ever say saving will get your hearts desire means being able afford a 350 a year should afford you 1200 after 3 years? If you want to nitpick, you will see that I said one would have to save AND get a better job for the above to make sense.

My point was prices for casual entertainment vs occasional entertainment (computer games/movies,etc/ vs holidays/niche sports/etc) is dissonant when it comes to computer hardware + titles.

Yes, the hardware itself has better value than the holiday, because the results last for 4 years (best case for the games we're talking about), but the hardware is the medium -- it still requires paying extra for the actual game(s), plus all manner of extra circumstantial costs. In fact one may gain for more from holiday -- in terms of life experiences, satisfaction, well being, etc, in the long run.

The price of games is intentionally inflated. An IMAX ticket for many new releases is also a magnitude more expensive than seeing it at matinee or through rental or even cheaper when its on TV or Netflix later on.

Most games go on Steam sale for $5 within 3 years of release. And even that is honestly still really inflated (after all, the real per unit cost of a game is $0, so its all pure profit anyway since people are willing to give away the game for free on torrent sites) but mobile demonstrates the real price floor for video games - the microtransaction whale market where you have to give it away for free and hope you have 1/100 customers actually pay money is fairly "real" in terms of pricing.

Even for paid mobile games, if they have a PC port, it will be a third or less the price on Google Play than it was on Steam, not because of development costs but because the Steam userbase "expects" $15 purchases while mobile users won't pay more than $5.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com