Dremor

I counted 3 of them.

Problem is that by doing that you are basically telling them "my answer is better than yours". That not yours to decide, and that's the reason you get downvoted despite having a part of what OP was searching for.

Just think of the obnoxious kid that'd boast for having half a point more than you did. You basically did the internet equivalent.

I added a break 😆

While true, why are you linking this comment in almost all the other comments? They are not incorrect, it just makes you look like an ass.

Is it still asking for root password everywhere ?

Instance name too.

Congrats on day 300. Thank you for all the time you take to make those well written threads and beautiful screenshots. 😁

Truly the dark ages...

I'm afraid you are. I'll give you a temporary ban to give you time to reflect on yourself.

$60 in 1992 is about $135 in April 2025, inflation included.

Sure games became more complex, but tools became more powerfull, and so did computers.

In 1992 you often had to code your own engine, which amounted for a good chunk of the development cost. They had to do that using a ressource envelope magnitudes smaller than what we have today. Heck, a jpeg screencap of the original Mario game is bigger than the whole original game itself. Let's not forget that games where physical, which had to be included in the final price.

Todays devs often uses off the shelf engines, tools that automate some of the tedious task, like making trees (Speedtree) and asset reuse is done on an industrial level, there are even marketplaces for that. Moreover, game distribution changed to be mostly digital, you don't need to factor the medium price into the asked price.

You cannot really compare 1992 dev costs with modern ones. The whole way games are done changed way too much for that.

Moreover, the market has grown way beyond what is was then. The required profit per copy sold is a lot smaller than it was then, and thus should be accojnted for.

Honesty, I don't see a AAA needing to have more than $60-70 atm, and I think this bump in price is entirely due to the ever increasing marketing cost, more than the game development.

Lol, what? If they want better working conditions, they can work somewhere other than Activision Blizzard, one of the scummiest companies in the world that’s actively contributing to tarnishing the integrity of the medium.

Sound like someone who never had any difficulty to find work (or do not work at all). Many worker do not have the possibility to easily change work, either because of the lack of similar companies in the vicinity, added to various reason for not being able to easily move home (kids, mortgages, among other). And even when they can, changing company is a jump into the unknown. It can be better, on the start of an even worse nightmare. At least in a company they already know, they have contacts, friends, and now, an union to protect them.

Also, I literally said “Cool” in response to them unionizing, so you’re just straight up lying when you say “you feel like those people, whose vast majority works to feed their family, do not deserve to have better working conditions”

Cool, but it’s not going to make the game any better.

You are right, I'm caricaturing it a bit. The problem is that you immediately rant about it not going your way. If you'd really want to congratulate them for that, you wouldn't immediately go on a rant about yourself immediately. Let's get another example. Would you say to a friend announcing getting engaged "Cool, but I still can't get laid"? No you wouldn't, only a narcissist would.

I even clarified by saying what I prioritize.

That a bit the problem. You prioritize yourself, in a context that has no reason to. We are talking about the employees, not you. Either talk about the topic of the thread, even if you are against it, but don't drag it to yourself at every occasion.

It’s sad watching you get this mad at me because I said I don’t like a game and then threaten to abuse your power to ban me.

Seek help.

If I'm that much into banning everyone, I would have done it without giving you a chance of arguing back. The people I banned indefinitely are all spambots or bad faith trolls. Other than that I usually give 3-7 days bans when things go too far, to give people time to self-reflect and join us again on a later date. Considering how well your comments were received by the community, I doubt the community will miss you while your enjoy your alone time.

The real toxicity is from the people responding to me like you lying, calling me a narcissist, and threatening to ban me just to support the dogpile.

I see we don't have the same definition of toxicity. If you consider that warning you to take a bit of time to self-reflect as toxicity, then you probably don't have your place in this community.

So you just go and post an off-topic rant, because you feel like those people, whose vast majority works to feed their family, do not deserve to have better working conditions?

Do you even realize how narcissistic you sound like?

Looking at your comment history I'm not really surprised, all you contributions looks like similar to this thread, but I'd like to give you a chance before banning you to keep this community turning toxic because of people like you.

Hey! Pope down the puns a bit.