On top of that, the seemingly endless remakes... Some are praise worthy others not so much. I got tired of Resident Evil Remakes, they are just recycling the same formula over, and over, and over again... Innovation has left a long time a go. Other example is the recent Assassin's Creed Black Flag "Resync" (which is a remaster with some things on top of it), I was planing on buying it, but Jesus, Ubisoft couldn't let it pass: their launcher is still there, all DLC's together cost more than the base game (and why have DLC in the first place?), the menu is has an ad for Assassin's Creed Shadows which, etc.

I'm currently doing a course (I think it's equivalent to an "Associate degree" in USA) in Game Development. I feel demotivated to take part in this industry, and I think that, at least for me, it should be just on and off gig to do in my spare time, perhaps with other enthusiasts too, but I don't plan to pursue it.

> Modern games have visually worse graphics than games that came out 10+ years ago

My knee jerk reaction was to disagree with this, but I thought about it a bit

The Witcher 3 came out 10 years ago. So did Red Dead Redemption 2 (edit: not quite, actually 8 years. Still!)

A lot of games still fall short of those in the graphics department

But the GTA V that people play today is not the version from 13 years ago for PS3 and Xbox 360.

We are on the third-generation of GTA V with the enhanced edition that only came out on PC last year, and Xbox/PS5 4 years ago. The latest version has 18x the pixels per second (9x resolution, 2x frame rate), and far more detailed models and textures than the Xbox 360/PS3 version.

It has been profitable for Rockstar to keep remaking the game with better and better visuals specifically because consumers are demanding it.

I could be wrong, but my personal impression is that much like on HN, it's the enthusiasts who are quite into niche stuff like indie games and bemoan the graphics race, where as the silent mass of "average" gamers are more like "oh man, the new Call of Duty has even better graphics! I can't imagine playing the old one anymore."

> I don't think many consumers (outside of hardcore games) could tell the difference between the graphics of a game from 10 years ago to the graphics from a game of today

My half blind aunt could probably tell the difference between the graphics of a game from 2016 and 2026 if you put them side by side.

Were video game graphics "good enough" for a while now? I’d say yes, with the exception of vr. But to say there has been no noticeable improvement over the last 10 years is silly.

GTA 6 is coming out soon. I’d invite you to actually compare the visuals of gta 6 vs the original gta 5 from 2014 that was released for ps4 (rather than the 2022 enhanced version for consoles or 2015 version for pc which shouldn’t be compared to non-pc gta 6, since 6 for pc will also get a significant facelift).

I don't know, "heavy technical improvements" might not be necessary, but I remember when skyrim first came out and it was sort of an amazing, immersive world.

I understand that maybe pixel graphics games can be really mindful and charming, but sometimes the AAA games have not only tech, but all the rest too.

Not that it's a sure thing. I also recall roger ebert reviewing transformers: revenge of the fallen

"Of course there will be many more CGI-based action epics, but never again one this bloated, excessive, incomprehensible, long (149 minutes) or expensive (more than $200 million)."

https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/the-fall-of-the-reven...

but the funny part is about climax.

> Did that thing that basically no one will ever see need to be created over the course of 9 months?

As an engineer, I worry so much about writing perfect code even when I know it is temporary script for one off job. In my home, I painted top of the doors that no one will see. But I know it is painted.

It is nice that people care about these small things.

Nobody wants to look at it, but I think this is a lot of it. The original Prince of Persia PC/Amiga version retailed at $39.95, or roughly $100 in today's money. In fact, roughly $100 in 2026 dollars was actually quite a stable price point for a very long time.

A $60 game in 2006 is also roughly $100 in 2026 dollars. I think what happened is that around then, people generally decided that "$60 is the price of a AAA game, and anything more is a sham". If I had to bet, I'd guess that that was around when a lot of the public got into gaming as something that wasn't just "for nerds".

I think that if people were willing to drop $100 up front, base price for a game, you would not find the microtransaction, ultimate edition, day 1 DLC shenanigans that you see. Companies would find it easy to say "But of course all skins are unlockable in game!"

>SNES games went for $60-70.

I don’t believe you were intending to paint with a broad brush, but for others I’d like to explain where SNES game pricing was in more detail, as there was quite the range of prices depending on the game and when it was released.

———-

The plain Jane SNES game was $50 at US launch in late 1991. Normal-ish ROM size (4Mbit). This included later released first-party titles like Super Mario Kart (1992).

Prices went up with ROM size, and as there were higher supply costs starting in late 1993 and into 1994. So something like even LOZ: A Link to the Past was $60 (8Mbit ROM used, game a bit smaller). Mega Man X was $60 for the same reason. Final Fantasy II (IV) in the US was $65 at launch (again, 8Mbit ROM). Street Fighter II (16Mbit) was $70 in 1992.

Then there’s larger games still, with ROM prices going down then up. I believe Final Fantasy III (VI) was $75 USD at launch, but that was a 24Mbit ROM. Secret of Mana (16MBit) and Chrono Trigger (32MBit) were $80 at launch. Then you had Ogre Battle which I believe was $90, despite fitting within 12Mbit (8Mbit + 4Mbit).

Another reason for $70 prices were the SuperFX chip. Stunt Race FX was $70 in the US at launch because of that chip, even though it fit into an 8Mbit ROM. Yet Star Fox was $60 was the same hardware, but launched at $60 in 1993 whereas Stunt Race FX came out in 1994 where ROM prices are higher.

—-

So $50 - 90, with it more in the $50-60 range at launch, and then $60 being more common through the rest of the console’s lifecycle. Special and larger games were trending towards $70 later in the console lifecycle. Then you had the few crazy games (excluding games with accessories like Lethal Enforcers) in the $75 - 90 range.

I’ll pick up a AAA game every few years and only after it’s on steep sale. This method has been working well for me but I’ve also considered myself as having my foot out the door for being a “gaming enthusiast” for 5-8 years now. I got tired of AAA games being so much money and not being very fun. Most recently, finally bought GoW Ragnarok for like $26 USD, ended up really not liking it and putting it down after 8 or so hours. Hurts a lot less when on steep sale.

I play a lot less than I used to thanks to cost, game quality and time - and the PS5 will be my last Sony console, regardless of the newest happenings. It’ll be PC and maybe a Nintendo console here and there unless prices go up even higher next gen, at which point I’d be done with consoles entirely and just use Steam and probably play indie and older games only. The industry just isn’t what it used to be.

Yep SNES games retailed for up to $70 in the early 90s. I’m seeing gamers revolt for paying that much today for something as immense as GTA6

Back then this was more expensive, adjusted for inflation, than many AAA titles today, and the scale of those games was way smaller

I won’t argue that today’s games are not expensive, but they have always been expensive.

I don’t have time to do much gaming anymore but I can find a ton of good stuff that isn’t bleeding edge if i did. Patient gamers always win.

I'm yet to play a game that cost more than tenth of my time I've put into it. A lot of product pricing does not have a factor of "why should I spend time on this?", but entertainment industry is really hard to price for this reason.

Whatever the answers are to help gaming become more affordable/keep beloved indie studios humming, generative AI is not it at all.

Yup and in 30 years from now, people will be saying the same for the last 30 years. For every Ocarina of Time there was hundreds of no names based on movie gimmick games that are forgotten about. For every Super Mario there was a hundred ET games on NES.

The mid to late 90s were incredible for video games. 1998 in particular might be the most impactful year of video game releases ever, tho 1996 is damn near as impactful as 1998. Probably the fact I was a teenager during this time colors my view substantially haha.

1996: Mario 64, Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Duke Nukem 3D, NiGHTS, Crash Bandicoot, Quake, DOA/Soul Edge, Pokémon Red/Blue, Civ II

1998: Zelda OOT, Marvel vs Capcom, Castlevania SOTN, Metal Gear Solid, StarCraft, Half-Life, DDR, Baldue’s Gate, Mario Party, Grim Fandango

I think you’re also describing the indie/lower-budget scene that does very well on Steam. There’s plenty of games that break out via streaming, for instance.

It's very interesting. I played that new-ish Marvel: Cosmic Invasion game and recently played Fight 'N Rage. I believe both are built in the exact same game engine. Fight 'N Rage, which is undoubtedly the better of the two games (although both are quite fun) had a tiny roster. I think there was a single primary developer, and then one guy did the music and maybe 1-2 other people helped with things. The Marvel game was made by a "real" studio and had tens (hundreds?) of staff to build what was effectively a slightly lower quality game. (although the Marvel game had a much smaller staff than anything like a modern AAA release.) Famously, Doom and Quake were made by quite small teams.

I don't know what the answer is, but there just seems to be unavoidable bloat all around. Staff, cost, complexity, system requirements, etc.

Isn’t this Nintendo? Pretty sure they’ve proven that you don’t need the latest in graphics (always a generation behind) to make engaging games.

What do you mean by "outcompete"? There've been some extremely successful small-studio games recently (the one that comes to mind is Silksong, which dropped last September)

this is sorta the Blumhouse model

TVs dont need to continuously improve. They just need to fall apart continuously. Which they now do. Ever own a 4k tv without problems for 5-10 years? Me neither. If you did please list the make and model as I would like to have one that is just as good as my old workhouse 1080p panel. Sony bravia I tried shit the bed and from the forum crawling I did this is not an unexpected issue. Most people seem to expect their TV to fail in about 5 years now it seems.

> TVs need to continuously improve to keep selling, as do video game systems, etc.

I think that's true, and it's actually a very interesting topic. Just imagine the prospect that technology has effectively stalled out, and our civilization is stuck perpetuating the perception of forward progress.

> TVs need to continuously improve to keep selling

All while getting cheaper in the process. Thanks capitalism!

What PC are they going to get for a comparable price, that also has a disc drive? The Steam Machine came out more expensive than they wanted due to the current component price crisis and doesn’t have a disc drive.

And even then, where is anyone buying physical PC releases?

Yeah that is what I do with an OG steam controller. I don't really understand why so many people are resistant to the idea. It makes a far better media center than any smart tv too in my opinion.

I use sunshine/moonlight for local streaming

I've only ever owned a Steam Deck so can't really comment. I used it a couple times intending to use it when travelling by train then sold it because it was too wide/big to really carry around with the carry case. Didn't really see the advantage over just playing mobile games (or doomscrolling social media etc) or playing more indie/basic games on the laptop.

Xbox is fine, it updates itself (firmware/OS updates only take about 5 mins) and the servers are fast enough. There's basically no maintenance. Can be annoying if it's a game you wanted to play at the moment updating but then Steam is the same.

Yes. There are no launchers for games that need to be updated. Everything just automatically gets updated constantly.

The biggest value prop for me with console gaming is that it just works, every time. No GPU/launcher/mod/etc updates to deal with ever.

I've owned some gaming PCs and every time I've learned that I don't want a hobby of maintaining a gaming PC. I want to sit down, in my favorite comfy chair, with a controller (because I've already been on a keyboard all day), and just play.

So they switch to Steam, a digital-only platform? In what world does that make sense?

I'm aware of that announcement, but its just words until they have a console to back it up with.

And when Gabe dies? “I trust company” is not convincing.

You could buy, sell, trade, loan, and backup games with the right regulation. Discs are irrelevant.

That entirely depends on the games you want to play. Check the most played games on Steam and how many of them are available on GOG. 1 out of 10 or even less.

PlayStation is going to release a portable console with docking functionality too. It might even come out before the PS6.

I think the point is that an i7, even from ~15 years ago, is probably sufficient for most gaming needs, especially if the game is primarily GPU-bound.

As long as you give the older CPU enough RAM, an SSD, and a good GPU, it probably is sufficient unless your doing sim-heavy games where you want the simulation speed to be maxed out (e.g. HoI4 later years max speed simulation)

Sorry my comment is about finding hardware that affordably allows you to build a good gaming rig if that’s the sole purpose. There are plenty of previous gen cpus that will give most gamers 90% of what they want to play no need for the LATEST hardware. That dream is dying.