I am genuinely not trying to sound like a studio apologist, because there are myriad reasons to be upset with them, but y'all need to think these arguments through a little better. I haven't pulled up any numbers, but are we really going to pretend that the cost of producing a game in 1990 is even remotely comparable to that of a modern day AAA game? The fact that video game costs have remained relatively steady and even decreased in some cases for decades should be astonishing.

Pick a different argument.

[–] thedrivingcrooner@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Pick a non-strawman argument and then we can have a discussion. They had different methods of creating games yes, but were they easier back then than they are now? I don't think so, they had people inventing the fucking wheel of what could be possible and we still had a consistent price tag with a FEATURE COMPLETE package. They didn't have as many workers as they did because all of the programming went to those individual developers to figure out. The amount of work is more intricately spread out in these bigger studios, but the passion and creativeness was more alive back in the early days. None of it was automated with fully polished dev tools and externally hired language teams.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The only strawman argument here is yours. Most people wouldn't play a game released today if it looked like Pong and had the same gameplay features. Also, there are a lot more wheels to invent today.

[–] thedrivingcrooner@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I'm not just talking about Pong, and that is another good example of a strawman argument ironically.

[–] SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org 0 points 1 year ago

How are you missing that you are literally comparing a team of 5 programmers and artists to games made by 500+ people?

I mean seriously you can read, that alone should be enough.