What's wrong with PC gaming

But where's the giveaway for What Remains of Edith Finch? ʕᵔᴥᵔʔ

Turns out I'm playing the mentioned game (What Remains of Edith Finch) currently and I love it. I won it in a giveaway and yeah it's the kind of game I'd consider buying for myself but I rarely buy anything at full price nowadays due to a couple reasons already mentioned in the thread:

1) Prices goes down fast. Even games like this can appear in a HB monthly bundle soon. The game was released 2 months ago and it's 25% off already.
2) There are plenty of awesome games ready to play in my backlog. And in the market, I mean I also like other genres that have amazing indie games waiting to be played.

Also I consider I spend a lot of money buying bundles, deals and games for giveaways, so even though $20 is a fair price for a gem like that, it just feels expensive to buy it full price.

I agree with what you say and I try to spend on games that I feel really deserve it but there's just too much offer nowadays.

I have to agree, though I think your title is misleading. The problem you have is with the community, not 'gaming' as an industry.

I'm at fault here, too - while I do try to buy games at full price that I'm very interested in (Oxenfree, Night in the Woods, and Firewatch come immediately to mind) its hard to justify full-price purchases when I might not even PLAY the game within the next six months or even longer. Backlogs are huge, and I can justify adding to it if I get the game at a steal. It's harder to justify when it's full price.

But that's a purely selfish argument. I absolutely want to vote with my wallet. One way I do that is put aside a certain amount of money a month to put in kickstarters or patreons, but helping slightly bigger companies should be a priority, too.

Bump

The problem boils down to one thing, choice. There is simply so much to choose from out there. I really only see one reason to purchase games upon release:

• Flavor of the month - Basically you are hopping from game to game while they are popular. For single player games this would be pretty much streamers trying to attract views. For multiplayer games, this can be quite advantageous as some games die off, either due to the servers went down caused by lack of funds(which would be the crux of this thread), the devs got their money and wanted out, or simply everyone moved on to another game.

Perhaps in an ideal market we would play the games first and then decide what they are worth. Without playing the games how are we to tell if game A is in fact worth more than game B? Instead, we mostly have prices the publishers believe they can extract the most out of their customers. Being inundated with seemingly countless number of games and sales, we have the luxury to wait and purchase games at a reduced price. With this, we are allowed the opportunity to spread the love to multiple developers. Besides, are we to disregard a game because it has been discounted, such as DOOM?

While I do incorporate game length into the value of the game, it is not the sole factor. Games that provide greater enjoyment are certainly better than one that drags on and potentially the experience. That being said, it does have to have some minimum amount of content per dollar spent. This I would value against the time/effort it would take me to earn the money.

Well, I guess you're talking to people like me. I put this game on my (fairly short) wishlist as soon as I heard about it. I guess I could buy a game like this at full price, but it's hard to justify doing so when 1) limited gametime and a large backlog of awesome games will keep me from playing it anytime soon, 2) it will probably be bundled soon, and 3) I always want to wait for games to be patched, check out some reviews to get a better idea if it's a game I'd play. I guess your point is to support the dev so they (and others) can make more games like this. It seems like it's a charitable cause at that point. You're better off just writing them a check so that Valve doesn't get any of it. :p I'll sometimes pay more than the BTA on a Humble Bundle if I think it's a great bundle. But overall I don't think that me paying full price for a game I probably won't play for a long time-- while it will be much cheaper or bundled in the meantime-- is something I can wrap my head around. =(

I actually agree with a lot of what you said.I do think a lot of games get bad sales not just for being bad games but due to all the sales not just on steam but other re-seller sites.

People have gotten use to not paying full price I mean just look at all the entitled people who complain about bundles and repeats and price!They are freaking bundles get over it.Then you have the big sales from Steam and people complain because most are not at bundle prices or 90% off.I'm sure I would get some blacklist for that but I do not care it's the truth.I get why you might say bad bundle but to take it past that and complain about price or repeats because you think you deserve good games all the time is a bit much.

This years steam sale is not so great but that is because I compare it to the last and I can see why it gets worse and worse.Publisher's are making less on release day games so offering less of a discount on big sales helps get some of that back.I am sure they have also realized that a lot of people only buy games during these sales.They also are to partly blame for allowing such things to happen but also the consumer is also at fault for being so damn cheap.

There are other factors of course and one of them is the market is flooded with games good and bad and not everyone will or can buy every big release.So publishers need to realize this before they game market crashes.Look at just the usual big release month's and how many 60 dollar games are released in a couple month's.

The PC is even worse with games look at how many are added weekly,monthly and yearly compared to say console platform.It's no wonder some good games get left in the dust.I'm not sure you would ever figure out what makes people buy games so it will always be a crap shoot of what to put out.

Take PUGB for example I do not get the appeal and why it sold over 4 million copies.Sure it seems like a some what decent shooter but really it does not stand out imo.It's just another run of the mill shooter in an already crowded market and ones that do it far better that sell far less.Then again you would think after the last 10 years people would be bored of shooting each other in the head.

Bump

I am using Linux and PS4 for gaming so I dont know anything about What Remains of Edith Finch.
Also about The Unfinished Swan I really dont know anything about it as well since I got my PS4 around Jan 2017 :P

So whats the reason that I dont know anything about these games? Oo?

Simple, What Remains of Edith Finch is only available on windows and since I am watching only Linux gaming news and maybe sometimes PS4 I have no clue about that game.
And about The Unfinished Swan is because is a bit old but I may try it out.
One mistake that 99% of developers are doing is that they are making their games ONLY for that Malware OS, M$ Windows, and dont port it to other OS.
Maybe Mac and Linux users are like 4% all together but believe me it will get more publicity if the developer publish their games in many different OS or maybe to consoles as well.
We are in the age where you have to publish your game in different OS or as many consoles to have a successful game.

As a Long time Gamer, from the Golden Arcade Era, I have played all kinds of games and now absolutely nothing is exciting for me anymore.
All games are repetitions of other games , nothing new to the genre of gaming.
Whatever game I try it bores me so much that I quit the game in a few mins and I dont play it again.
I dont like FPS, strategy, turn based games,walking simulators , Long boring Story games,bla bla type of games , simulators and I hate with passion ALL the games that have the word "GRINDING " in it since I have been a wow player for 8+ years .

I prefer brawling games like rocket league ,arena Warrior type games that end in like 5-15 mins max or some good platform games like Slain: Back from Hell and maybe a nice adventure game that will give me a unique experience like for example Fran Bow.
(I have sold my main PC so I just play on PS4 now waiting for the gaming industry to settle down the hardware releases(ADM VEGA,I9,EPYC, Thread-ripper etc) so as to decide the hardware for my next pc.)

Bum for the total agreement you've got from me.

Well never heard of either of games you mentioned, and actually I am not interested in these, but I will react a bit more.
Get rid of bundles, trash games and then you have a bigger chance to get people pay full price for some games again... nowadays most of the players got thousands games for few bucks, so for them there is just no reason to pay full price for any game, which one day hit bundles too... well not every, but most of them will be in bundle in few years. Let see, you mentioned adventure game... I would say I have few hundreds of adventure games and even good ones in my library, which I would probably play sooner, then I buy other non-bundle adventure. This is that problem, I would pay full price for some adventure game, but why? I can play these which I own now and till I will finish them, there will be bigger sale for this one you mentioned... and if game is not MUSTPLAYNOW, then there is just no reason.
And no, I get your point, if you want to say I am bad one aswell. :) Definitely I would support some games/studios with full price, but only if I know them or love that series (got multiple full priced games lately and even some preorders).

I agree with you, it is kind of sad that many people would never buy a full prices game ._. or let's rather say, a full priced game has to be an FPS or survival game while the more unique indie titles get treated differently.
A former friend of mine (not the brightest bulb in the box, to be honest...) treated all indie games equally... He thought every single one of them is not worth the full price and only AAA-Games are worth the money. So whenever I brought an indie title to his attention, he would frown upon the price of maybe 15-20€ but at the same time, willingly paid 60€ for No Man's Sky, which he considered to be a AAA game. Jokes on him :p
He mentioned some other AAA games as well, but never considered any indie game to be more than a cheap way to kill of some time, so nothing he's willing to spend more than 5€ on.

In my opinion, PC games have another problem that is nowadays also present on the console but originally started on the PC.
Publishing unfinished gams.
Like I said, it started on the PC and today... the problem seems to be omnipresent. But I guess people (at least people like me ^^" I still have a PS2 and remember the good old days when publishers provided a finished game on release!) still associate unfinished games with PC games and therefor learned the lesson to not buy a game on release unless you whish to experience a ton of bugs. And by the time the majority of bugs has been fixed, the price already decreased, or there has been a discount somewhere.
What lesson could be learned? Do not pay full price for a game, wait until it's actually playable and get it even cheaper than on release with all the (maybe gamebreaking) bugs.
Of course I know that not every game has such bugs and judging from my experience, the good indie developers try hard to release a finished product, but I'm still rather cautious whether or not I pay full price for a game. So more often than not, I wait until the bugs got fixed (and like I mentioned, might not even have to pay the full price anymore). But this hasn't much to do with not wanting to pay the full price, but rather with expecting a complete and enjoyable game without major bugs.

In generall, I hate the idea of making a game "exclusively for" a certain console. Back in the good old PS2 days, when a console was way more powerful when it came to gaming than a PC (at least that's what I've read somewhere, that it was technically almost impossible to build an affordable PC that could handle PS2 games) it was the only way. But today? I will not hoard various consoles just because there are 1-3 titles I'm interested in O.o I have a nice collection of PS2 games and I could not play a single one of them on a PS4, so any PS4 game will probably be incompatible with a PS5. On the PC, I usually don't have to worry about compatibility issues, therefor I stick stricktly to PC games.
But maybe, since console players know that it's only a matter of time until a new console get's released, they rather buy their games on release and play them without delay, because they will be incompatible with the new one? Just a wild guess O.o and none that I like, because it would mean that publishers could think it's a good idea to make console exclusive titles more often x.x But in the long run, they would probably loose money, unless they 'remaster' every interesting game.

Sorry, that I'm not able to add anything interesting to the discussion ^^" but these are my thoughts and I'm not even sure if they have anything to do with the problem at all >.<
and sorry for the mistakes x.x English is not my native language and to make things worse, I'm terribly tired atm

Everything is set for Giant Sparrow's next success story - but it doesn't sell as well as it should. Before summer sale it had around 25,000 copies sold. Not a lot, considering the circumstances. Based on these numbers alone, you would expect sales to explode, right? But it doesn't happen. So, why is that?

It's a 2h long game being sold for 20€ that will probably end up in a bundle in half a year and my backlog is long enough that I won't even notice the passing time. Nothing is wrong with PC gaming, we just have so many games that paying quite a lot for a short experience doesn't feel too exciting.

If I were only able to buy games for $60, I would find a different hobby. Seriously, I won't pay that much for a game that is not short of amazing. Since most games certainly are not amazing, I won't pay $60 for them. Sorry if it bothers you.

I feel very strongly similar. I usually buy if i am sure i will enjoy an indie game if i can afford it. I am still a student but fortunately regional prices had me covered. For me it's saying i support you. But there are a lot of releases in pc to keep up with it. That's the real draw back for me. The other part is I am overwhelmed by the games i have right now. Even if i find something interesting, I am not going to buy anymore. Because i can't play it. Example is Rain World, I bought it in the release when i understand i need to sunk my many hours in it, I put it aside.

I pay full price for games quite often myself but never pre-order anymore i have been burned by pre-orders one to many times with hyped up games that dont deliver,games that are stripped for content just to be sold as DLC day one,games that are basically untested and unstable or do not run at all.
i personally think a lot of the gaming industry is responsible for creating a market where people wait to pay less for games after all the bugs have been fixed,dlc's have been added to the base game and a good reviewer base has been established so people dont pay for lemons.

I want to point out that if people want to see a certain game come to the PC releasing the next game the devs make is not a good enough replacement. I want to play "Unfinished Swan" someday, and I want to do it on my PC, giving me the option to buy "What Remains of Edith Finch" is not good enough. If you want an apple and someone offers you a pear instead and tells you "is a fruit too" you have the right to not buy that pear even if it's the most delicious pear in the world.
I'd rather get older games that I'm eager to play that new games I'm not convinced if I want to try, if they had released the Unfinished Swan first they would have an audience on PC willing to pay for their next game.

I totally agree with you. But I can also see why some people might not want to buy games at full price. I have the money to do so and can look forward to a nice future with a very good job. Not everyone has that luxury.

That said, I totally vote with my wallet in a positive way. For example I recently pre-ordered the Serpent God Edition (the most luxerious and expensive edition) of Total War: Warhammer 2. Partly to support the devs (but also because it has some nice goodies of course) and I know the game will be worth even twice that amount to me

Before summer sale it had around 25,000 copies sold. Not a lot, considering the circumstances. Based on these numbers alone, you would expect sales to explode, right? But it doesn't happen. So, why is that?

I think that is because not a lot of people actually know of the game. I for one never heard of it. And Steam has so many indie games (of which a lot are complete garbage) that it's easy to overlook it. That's one of the issues with Steam. There are simply too many games available, with more releasing every single day.

I don't really agree, if people really like it, they will buy it at it's asking price. Assuming it isn't too high to begin with. Or they stick to their guns and don't go on sale relatively soon.

I think the difference between console and pc players is that console players seem to enjoy having a "battle of the wallets." It's always a race to get a popular game first and dominate it. Which often means the game is bought at its original asking price. Frequent sales on Steam does change how consumers react to a game, but unlike console, we have a clear and obvious review system. As well as a tag system to help give an idea what a game is about before we even buy it. We're a bit more well informed about a game.

I remember seeing the demo, I think that's what it was, for the Unfinished Swan on the PS3. It seemed interesting, but I had no idea what it was about, or what I was supposed to be doing in it; so I passed on it. What Remains of Edith Finch seems like an interesting, well put together game. But thanks to the tags, I see that it's basically a walking simulator, so that's a no go for me. In my opinion, I would only buy a walking simulator if it was cheaper than that and offered quite a few hours in it. Hidden object games are cheaper than that, and offer more game play with around the same amount of hours.

It's possible that niche games, walking simulators, don't sell "well" on Steam in comparison to other genres. Especially since this seems to be the developers first game on Steam. Otherwise, I personally don't put much value in a walking simulator to begin with. They often ask to high a price for the little but you get to do and see in it. So it's no wonder someone would rather spend that hard earned money on something that gives them more to do.

You're overthinking things, the game didn't sell well because it's another walking simulator and people are getting tired of them.

As much as I really want Edith Finch I can't justify paying $15 for a game that takes less than 2 hours to complete. I absolutely love walking simulators but in most cases i'm not willing to pay a lot for them because they are usually very short experiences. I get your argument about quality of the game which definitely does play a factor for me, however length is always the deciding factor for me if i'm on the edge of buying a game.