Then, responding to those who have said he’s “only doing this for the money", Szymanski tweeted: “Yes, no fucking shit. I make games for a living. If I didn’t want to earn money from them I wouldn’t charge money for them.”
The game follows the premise of being trapped in an underwater submarine out of necessity to capture deep pictures.
It’s a 5 dollar game (being generous) that was already overpriced at $6. I get wanting more money, but your product isn’t worth the price increase to begin with.
I forgot that everyone is forced to buy this game. This price increase is an outage. If only the people who thought about playing it could make the decision to buy it or not, then that might be reasonable. But come on people, this game costs more than
a small pizzahalf a small pizza!/s
Facts and opinions are different things.
If you don’t like the game, or think it’s overpriced, don’t buy it. The dev should continue to price it as they see fit.
When AAA publishers price games at $70, the solution is not to buy it. It’s not different here, except that $6 > $8 is not a difference most people (except the dev, due to volume) will care about.
And if the difference between $6 and $8 really is where they draw the line, they can always wait for a sale. I’ve bought many indie games on sale where I thought eh, that might be fun for $12 but not worth risking my $20
Well. Thankfully he never said that his statement was an objective fact.
Seriously, what’s up with you people? Do you need every single statement prefaced with “this is only my subjective opinion and not concrete fact but-!” Or you’ll take it like they’re trying to preach the word of god?
You’re not a computer. Why are you acting like one?
This tends to mean you’ve misunderstood a basic social norm.
Like interpreting obvious opinion statements as objective fact?
Which part of your statement made it obvious?
Well, one, Jesus Christ, it’s not even my statement. Two, the guy saying “this game isn’t worth $8” is obviously a subjective statement because it literally cannot ever be an objective statement.
Like. By definition.
When you see a movie rating and someone rates it four out of five stars, you understand that’s not them declaring a universal constant, correct?
Here’s perhaps what has eluded you overall: $2 isn’t even worth continuing this argument.
You can just say you goofed up and said something silly lmao. It’s more embarrassing to suddenly go “uhm, actually…. Have you considered I suddenly don’t want to talk about this anymore?” When confronted with an error on your part.
They did. Just because you don’t explicitly say “this is a fact”, doesn’t mean you’re not making a statement of fact. “This is a $5 game” is a statement of fact. “I wouldn’t pay more than $5 for this game” is a statement of opinion. That’s the difference between humans reading a passage and computers doing the same. Humans take context and past experience into account, all of which say that the phrasing they originally used implies an objective fact.
No he didn’t. He said “this isn’t a $6 game, let alone an $8 game”. Both of those are subjective opinion statements. He is referring to the perceived value of the game being lower to the actual costs of the game ($6 and $8 respectively)
This is really not a difficult thing. I’m not sure why so many Lemmy users are struggling with it
In the only perfectly logical interpretation of the comment, you would be correct. Unfortunately, humans are not always perfectly logical and will often say things that are illogical. The most common meaning intended by the phrase “this is a $5 game” is the illogical one of presenting it as an objective fact.
I refuse to believe that this is the first time you’ve encountered an illogical statement.
So under your grand interpretation, you should default to just saying “no, when they said that they actually meant it in the wrong way”.
You might just be too cynical and online to read man
It’s fine (and expected in most human interactions) to default to assuming that the most commonly intended meaning is what’s intended. And no, that doesn’t mean you should respond like an asshole. Respond to the intended meaning of the original statement instead of commenting on how your use of the English language is superior to theirs.
This is how human interactions work in general. It’s worth learning if you want to fit into society.
Yep. The intended meaning of the original comment is a subjective opinion. There is literally no way for it not to be.
Hope this cleared things up for you. Really hoping you’re not a computer programmer or like… someone who has to talk to people in your day job.
Yeah, I dunno how fairly to price a video game. But it’s kind of interesting that price increases on some things are universally seen as bad, but when a video game developer does it (irrespective of how much money they have), everyone suddenly becomes the most staunch Ayn Rand free market capitalist in a way I don’t think they would be if their local plumbing company or restaurants suddenly raised prices 20% and said “no fucking shit, I do this for a living”.
It was a big thing with the Disco Elysium game, wherein the creators by all means did every single possible move to maximize their personal profits and ended up having it come back to haunt them, and basically everyone said they were being exploited by this horrific system because they’re vaguely communist game developers.
Again, it’s not to say that David shouldn’t price his game at $8 or that the DE guys didn’t get fucked, but it’s interesting how political views become flexible based on how much an audience likes a guy.
I realize this is grounds for the most downvoted comment on Lemmy. That’s fine. It is what it is.
You’ve left one thing out of your little “everyone is a libertarian when it comes to video games” theory there - I’ve never heard of the game, never heard of the dev, I am very much left leaning and I support the dev’s decision to raise the price of the game by 20% if that’s what they want to do. If it’s worth it, people will still buy it. If it’s not, they won’t. This is hardly some AAA publisher pulling a bait and switch during pre-orders. The game is out and available, anyone unsure of it can easily read reviews, watch videos of people playing it, etc and of course, they can also do a refund.
That’s fine. It’s not really a flaw in my statement. I assume you’re also fine with increases on most goods and services then on a somewhat “at will” / free market basis. My comment only refers to people who are often staunchly against such practices but make a “hole” in this view specifically for video games / media
I believe the prevailing opinion is that price increase for anything is fine as long as it goes towards the people doing the work. Increase a game’s price so the devs get better pay? Cool. Increase the price of bread so that bakers get better pay? Cool. Increase the price of anything so that shareholders get better returns? Not cool.
Yeah, the other comment mention about AAA game increasing price from 60 to 70 and “no once cares” and it’s fucking bullshit. Everyone would be in arms if it happens to a game that’s already released.
What they usually do now is selling it at 80 from the get go but it’s another discussion. People go in arms when a game DOESN’T go into discount after some time ffs. The usual expectation is for a game to go cheaper overtime, not more expensive.
The market will decide that
Make a better game for cheaper
With blackjack? And hookers?