I still have so many games I've picked up on Steam sales that I'll happily wait for those $80 games to go on sale while going through my back catalogue
this post was submitted on 03 May 2025
396 points (98.5% liked)
Games
38468 readers
2898 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here and here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Bruh it's 2025 and I'm still on a spin cycle of mostly 10 years old or more games
yes, because the real problem is too much choice.
fuckin finbro bullshit.
I remember paying $10 for an Atari game. I know it's not a great comparison, but I got hundreds if not thousands of hours of gameplay out of Qbert. Can any of the leading games in the last decade do that?
It's funny I mention Atari. They had so many games to play. the choices you had were bonkers. best part was you could take your carts to a friends house and trade or share.
can't do that today since most games are digital downloads that need 32gb day-0 updates.
perhaps the problem isn't the gamers, but instead it's the greedy corporate interests that are poisoning the game industry requesting $80 single owner games.
I don't disagree with you, but there's no way you have thousands of hours in Qbert. Even hundreds is impressive.
I was a poor farm kid and winters were long.
I was still playing our Atari 2600 when the PS2 launched.
Daaamn haha. Fair enough.
That really dramatically takes the steam out of your argument though.
If the same conditions for you existed today, any modern game would blow qbert out of the water, and indeed you would put thousands of hours into it.
Also, Atari games were $20 when they were new not 10. So with inflation it's about the same as an $80 game today.
The other thing is that there was simply fewer games back then so you either continue to play the good games you own or you don't play games. I loved Ocarina of Time, but I'm not going to pretend it was God's gift to mankind just because I played it tons in my youth. I played it tons in my youth because it was one of the best games that I owned, and even then I had plenty more options than I'm sure this person had on the Atari for good games
$10 in q-bert days is like 50-60 now :)
Can any of the leading games in the last decade do that?
Satisfactory, Dyson Sphere project, Factorio, Minecraft, Dreamlight Valley
Arcade games were great because it's what we had. Sit a kid in front a Q-Bert now and try to get 1000 hours out of it.
Stuff is getting too big, there's too much emphasis on making it pretty to sell it rather than making it fun, but I don't know that we could go back to arcade games. I fear our nostalgia is a half-dose of Stockholm's syndrome.
$50-60 based on what? Adjusted for inflation in 1982, it's more like $33 and distribution costs are way lower than back then. Truth is you just need to find a compelling gameplay loop but companies don't like taking risks- not every game needs to be a massive endeavor like skyrim. Look at games like slay the spire and see how a cheap game can be compelling without having to be a AAA behemoth. And at that note, is there even anything wrong if a game only takes your attention for a hundred hours? I don't see the need to extend the player's attention with poor side quest grinding. These things add unnecessary cost
The $10 games were trash in 1982. You're going to spend 30 on something like Q-bert https://www.polygon.com/2014/6/4/5779048/atari-et-ads-commercials-videos-1982
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
in 2025 Money, that's $99, assuming you got it used I gave you 50-60
is there even anything wrong if a game only takes your attention for a hundred hours
I don't think so, but you're the one who mentioned it :)
but I got hundreds if not thousands of hours of gameplay out of Qbert. Can any of the leading games in the last decade do that?
Wow, shift goalposts much? You said "$10 in qbert days" which was the 80s and now it's not $10 it's $30. You can just admit you got it wrong and it was never $10 (though I do think prices right now are actually well aligned at $60 because of the far lower costs in distribution and marketing). Also I'm NOT the OP who played thousands of hours on qbert. Great job quoting someone else.
Pugstorm's new game is going to be just 20 bucks. (It's being published by Chucklefish so I'll still be pirating it, but it's nice that they're still keeoing it indie)
Honest question. What's wrong with Chucklefish as a publisher?
They are run by some if the worst bigots and transphobes. Who also exploited their "workforce" of volunteers. Just some all around shitsacks, and they don't deserve any of my money.
The amount of options isn’t the issue.
For most 25-40€ games I buy, i can get a great experience for the next 30-50 hours.
Indie games absolutely crush the statistics, where some sub-15€ roguelikes have such insane replayability, that i’ve clocked over a thousand hours into a couple. Not to mention how incredibly creative, unique, and story rich some of them are.
Meanwhile, what used to be 60€, and is now 80€+, is some “cinematic” 20fps on console slop, that you can barely get 5 hours of real gameplay out of. I don’t wanna sit there and watch a movie with an occasional A button press. Or even worse, play something like the Assassins Creed reboot, that had 500 hours of gameplay, 490 of which is just useless collectibles around the map.
Measuring games by hours has become an increasing less useful metric to me because I already have my grinding games that I can endlessly replay. When buying new games, I'd rather get something I'll really enjoy for a short playthrough than a long epic JRPG I can't bring myself to actually set aside time for - even though I do really love JRPGs.
Check out Expedition 33. It feels like a love letter to jrpg but without the time commitment.
load more comments
(10 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Would be interested to know what games you have >500 hours in. Especially if they aren't multi-player online games.
-
Fallout 4. A lot of this is going to be due to mods.
-
Wargame: Red Dragon. Intended to be played multiplayer; I played it single-player. Steel Division II is a far better single-player choice if you don't mind the different setting, as the AI is much more interesting.
-
Skyrim. A lot of this is going to be due to mods.
-
Fallout 76, the only entry here I actually play multiplayer (and even that to a minimal degree; that game tends to have players having pretty minimal interaction with each other unless they're actually trying to play with each other). I would recommend playing Fallout 4 over Fallout 76 unless you specifically want multiplayer; Fallout 76 is just the closest thing to "more Fallout" short of a Fallout 5.
Not run through Steam, so no Steam stats (though available on Steam) but I'm sure that they're way up there:
-
Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead. Free and open-source, though there's a commercial build on Steam if you want to effectively donate. If not, can download from their project page.
-
Dwarf Fortress. Free, though there's a commercial build on Steam with a fancier, more-approachable UI and such.
-
Dungeon Crawl: Stone Soup, though that's going back a few years. Free and open-source.
Some others with a fair bit of playtime:
-
Steel Division II. Primarily a multiplayer game, but I only play single-player.
-
Mount & Blade: Warband. The Prophesy of Pendor mod adds a fair bit of time to this.
-
Elite: Dangerous. Though I don't remember how I accumulated that many hours. Wasn't super-impressed with the game. Probably pretty in VR, though.
-
Carrier Command 2. Primarily intended to be played multiplayer, but I play single-player.
Out of those I’ve devoted a ton of time to rimworld and oxygen not included, are any of the others on your list similar, or others you’d recommend for someone who likes them? I tried dwarf fortress but I found it to be… not my bag. I didn’t get very far into it tho.
(I do like mods, so that’s an ok requirement)
I tend to like games that have lots of "levers" to play with and spend time figuring out, so I think that tends to be the unifying factor in the above games.
I don't know of anything really comparable to Oxygen Not Included in terms of all the physics and stuff. I'd like something like it too (especially since Tencent bought ONI and now has some locked graphics for some in-game items that you can only get by enabling data-harvesting and then playing the game for a given amount of time, which I'm not willing to do. They don't have an option to just buy that content. At least it's optional.)
For Rimworld and Oygen Not Included, both are real-time colony sims. Of those, the closest stuff on my list is probably:
-
Dwarf Fortress (note that the commercial Steam build looks quite different from the classic version, has graphics and a mouse-oriented UI and revamped the UI and such, which may-or-may-not matter to you; if the learning curve being steep is an issue, that makes it a tad gentler). Rimworld is, in many ways, a simplified Dwarf Fortress in a sci-fi setting and without a Z-axis.
-
Kenshi. Not a colony sim. You control a free-roaming squad (or squads) in an post-apocalyptic open world. That's actually a bit like Rimworld. However, you can set up one or more outposts and set up automated production there. It's getting a bit long in the tooth, and the early game is very difficult, as your character is weak and outclassed by almost everything. Focus is more on the characters, and less on the outpost-building -- that's more of a late-game goal. I find it to be pretty easy to go back and play more of. There's a sequel in the works that'll hopefully look prettier. Not really any other game I'm aware of in quite the same genre.
The other things on my list don't really deal with building.
Oxygen Not Included has automated production. If you're willing to go outside "colony sim", there is a genre of "factory-building games" where one controls maybe a single character or base element and just tries to create a world of automated production stuff, maybe with tower defense elements. I'd probably recommend Satisfactory if you want 3D and a first-person view. I like it, but in my book, it doesn't really compare with the games that I've racked up a ton of time on, winds up feeling a bit samey after a while, looks like I have thirty-some hours. Mindustry is a free and open-source factory builder that you can grab off F-Droid for Android to play on-the-go; that and Shattered Pixel Dungeon are probably my open-source Android favorite games. Dyson Sphere Program has outstanding ratings, but I have not gotten around to playing it.
There are a few colony sim games sort of like Rimworld or Dwarf Fortress. I tried them, and none of them grabbed me as well as they did, but if you want to look at them:
-
Rise to Ruins is a colony sim and does have combat, but less focus on individual characters than Rimworld. I don't like it mostly because the game is not really designed to be winnable, which I find frustrating. There's growing "corruption" coming in from the edges of the map, and the aim is to try to last as long as possible before becoming overwhelmed; you can flee from it to other colonies. Technically, there are some ways to defeat the corruption, but not really how the game is intended to be played.
-
Prison Architect. This has somewhat-similar graphics to Rimworld. You build and manage a prison. It's not a bad game, but it doesn't really have the open-world scope of Rimworld.
-
Timberborn. This was in fairly Early Access the last time I spent much time on it, so I'm kind of out-of-date, and it looks like it's still in EA. Doesn't have the combat elements from Rimworld or Dwarf Fortress.
-
Gnomoria is kind of like a much-simplified Dwarf Fortress. It didn't really grab me, but maybe it's your cup of tea.
Thanks for taking the time to write all that out for me! I appreciate it and I’ll look into some of those!
Have a great day, friend!
That is a fine collection of games there! :)
load more comments
(1 replies)
RimWorld ...
Minecraft, slay the spire, civilisation, atomicrops.
Balatro could have been a contender but I lost interest suddenly and unexpectedly.
spoiler
Tetris the daddy
load more comments
(16 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
But it still spooked Wall Street, as parent company Take-Two Interactive Software Inc.’s shares plummeted as much as 10% following the news.
I think our economy might be predicated entirely on stupid.
Also, $80 is a lot when typical people's buying power is decreasing. I think like half of americans can't tank a $500 surprise bill, and they want people to blow nearly 20% of that on a video game? Fuck off, capitalists.
We (the gaming community) say this every time, but microtransactions and lootboxes have spread like viruses because gamers are buying them.
I hate predatory pricing on principle, but whale votes count for a lot more.
Those systems are literally designed to be psychologically addictive and prey on those weakest to such tactics. It's not stupidity; it's literal brain washing via Pavlovian response.
Basic human psychology has been weaponized against us, and they've been getting better at it faster than we're getting better at resisting it, for decades.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Don't pre order games. Don't buy games at full price. Support indie devs.
It’s ok to but indie games even if still a public beta, to support the devs. Had a great time with Factorio, Rimworld, Valheim before 1.0 release.
load more comments
(7 replies)
I have 170 games in my backlog and the summer sale is coming. I ain't spending 80 bucks on one video game.
It’s funny how it’s not even quantity over quality because those 5 to 8 ~$10 to $15 games will provide high quality gameplay and storytelling.
I will continue to wait until games go on discount
What AAA title is worth $80? The most time I spend gaming is in a 10 year old shooter, and an indie survival game. Both of which I bought for <$20.
load more comments
(18 replies)
It sucks that waiting for a sale might only bring down to the original $50 new full price it used to be.
Just have to wait longer I guess.¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The amount of games on the PC is way to large to be buying right away.
load more comments
(1 replies)
There are so many options out there that asking for $80, or whatever the equivalent is, is just ridiculous. I really hope people stand up against this bulshit.
I made a rule that I can't spend over $10 on a game until I've played through my entire backlog. I haven't bought a game over $10 in 10 years and I've spent $6k on Steam since I started using it.
There are very few games I would spend $80 on. Actually, at this point I don't buy a lot of new games to begin with, I'm mostly just grinding the same old favorites now.
But for the games I really care about, I'm willing to spend on games I know will be worth it to me. I've waited 22 years for a sequel to Kirby Air Ride and if I have to pay $80 for it, I will pay $80 for it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I pirate games first before buying. Too many games become shit past the return window on Steam. I buy every game I like.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I’ve only bought one $80 game thus far (And that was during a 30% steam sale so only $55) and from my years of experience of buying games, I can confidently say that my enjoyment in games goes down as price goes up.
Although weirdly all of the $80 games that released so far have been pretty bad so that’s strange.
view more: next ›