• BigPotato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Ah, yes, because the take away is that we need 1000+ dev studios churning out yearly slop franchises after 18+ months of crunch to justify their price tag, yeah?

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        it’s not. one being infinitely more wasteful for a lesser product that costs more doesn’t make it a bad comparison.

        • Soulg@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          It’s a bad comparison, and also what youre saying about it is correct on that it’s wasteful etc. that’s simply a different conversation

          • pyre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 hours ago

            no, it’s not. unless there are people protesting outside so-called AAA company offices to only make games with more crunch, bigger empty maps with pointless busywork, more detailed “realistic” looting animations that take so long it becomes a chore playing the game, it’s their choice and waste to do so. no one asks games to cost millions to make, and no one demands them to make billions to count as successful. they pretend this is a demand. it’s not.

      • filcuk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Funnily, that’s a terrible comparison too.
        Few people fit into a taxi, but many can buy a bus ticket.
        Obviously it’s not that simple anyway, I just had a chuckle.