this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
508 points (98.5% liked)
PC Gaming
8651 readers
378 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
(Or ever?)
It was fine, arguably a good practice, when physical non-patchable games existed. Especially, say, Pokemon games that would otherwise be sold out for several months, meaning the social aspect was ruined if you didn't get it as it came out.
I personally don't think it was ever fine, not when there is a giant publisher standing & profiting behind it.
For smol independent studios or even one-man-dev teams (as a high risk "investment"/support) I would understand.
I want to finance devs & artists as much as possible, not lowering financing costs of a giant company (and give them even more monetization opportunities).
Im not familiar with the Pokemon thing you mentioned but that seems like an artificial scarcity. Physical copies could always be stamped overnight (vidya game magazines did it for decades).