(But it’s also heavily on sale right now, for $15 - https://store.steampowered.com/app/526870/Satisfactory/)

Personally, I don’t mind at all. For one I bought it at $30, but also I have 2,000 hours logged. Per hour that’s a cost of $0.02 per hour (at the new price) if I had bought it at $40. I’m all for calling out studios like ubisoft for being greedy, but coffee stain has done a very fair job with Satisfactory IMO, and they very well deserve $10 more for the game.

That being said, go pick it up now for $15

  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    82·
    3 days ago

    Well then, devs should be able to increase the price as inflation increases so the equivalent cost stays the same.

    • CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works
      114·
      3 days ago

      I wrote is elsewhere but I’ll write it again here:

      Inflation affects physical goods because you need to make the product from the ground up every single time. Those materials cost money, and rise with inflation, so making the product from scratch each time gradually costs more as time goes on. Hence why they need to raise the price of the finished product - otherwise they’d literally lose money on each sale.

      Digital goods don’t work this way, once the product has been made it can freely be distributed without having to be remade again and again.

      Yes, it costs money to patch and update. But that’s not comparable to rebuilding the product from the ground up like with physical goods.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        92·
        3 days ago

        Selling the game is the devs income, if everything else costs more and you don’t increase your income you’re just becoming poorer.

        Just because you’re doing office work do you believe you shouldn’t get a raise?

        • CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works
          111·
          3 days ago

          Hence why you release a new product. You can’t indefinitely make income from one thing until the end of time.

          You can charge more for a new product, as you can actually scale for inflation when you have to make it from the ground up. After all, the tools and manpower it required cost more now. So you can charge more.

          But asking for more money for a product that was made half a decade prior, that didn’t cost what it costs now since inflation wasn’t where it is now, isn’t the answer.

          Listen, as a general rule of thumb, if even EA and Activision won’t go there, maybe you shouldn’t either.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            52·
            3 days ago

            So they should just stop development on a game that’s still considered early access and leave it in an unfinished state and start working on something else that they can charge more for and just stop working on it once inflation catches up no matter the state it’s in? That’s what you’re saying devs should do?

            EA, Activision, Ubisoft don’t do it this way, instead they charge you for all extra content separately.

            Maybe that’s what the Satisfactory team should do, release the game as is as being complete, not change the price and then release paid DLC that would otherwise have been updates so in the end people need to pay more to get the full game… Damn, we’re back to square one but now people who already paid for the game also need to pay for updates…

            • CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works
              19·
              3 days ago

              Nope, they decided to accept purchases for a game that isn’t finished, and in doing so promised that one day it would be. If they stop now they’ll just be scammers.

              They should do what Larian did. Release the game in EA, develop the game with those new purchases helping to keep things going, then release it when it’s complete. No artificially changing the price, no bs.

              And in what world has what we’ve gotten from free Satisfactory updates constituted would-be paid dlc? Or are you just using hypotheticals that aren’t relevant?

              • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                42·
                3 days ago

                I mean, they get to decide when it’s finished, if it’s stable and there’s enough content that people are playing hundreds of hours then they can say that that’s the basic experience and if people want more they need to pay for it, in the end it’s even worse than just not having paid DLC and increasing the price as the game gets more content and life becomes more expensive.

                Not as if there was anything new to doing that, Minecraft cost about 5$ for the people who bought it as soon as it was made available, now you don’t even get the mobile version for that price.

                • CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works
                  19·
                  3 days ago

                  Again, there’s literally no reason for you to believe that this price increase somehow means you’ll never have to pay for dlc. Have you never heard of Factorio?

                  And for the record, like with your Minecraft example, I’m not against devs charging less for Early Access versions, alphas, betas, etc, and charging more for the finished product when it fully launches. That’s a very common practice, in fact it’s the standard.

                  That’s very different than deciding to increase the price arbitrarily in the middle of developing an early access title that’s been in development for 5 years, and isn’t releasing officially yet.

                  • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                    32·
                    3 days ago

                    “I’m not against what Minecraft did, I’m just against what Minecraft did.”

                    Get your story straight buddy.