deleted by creator

Now that’s an unpopular opinion! With a game like that (which is specifically designed not to be fun but to extract money from users) I’d say you’re not a gamer, you’re an addict ;)

Office workers played Solitaire on their work PCs before smartphones even existed, would they have called themselves gamers? I think a certain minimum degree of investment in a hobby/culture is required before you can name yourself as a participant, and Candy Crush doesn’t cut it imo.

The massive amount of work that goes into a modern AAA title is truly mind blowing. It’s gross that so little money goes to the people who actually make the games but certainly the effort is astounding even in titles that fall short of expectations.

This is the line of reasoning I used with my parents as a kid. Dollar per hour entertained.

But I think differently about it these days. I’m looking for maximum value per hour, with an eye towards minimal hours, and with a definite end point if applicable.

And value in this sense could be raw entertainment, but it could be something else, like exposure to new ideas and novel perspectives on life etc.

But I suppose that’s what happens when you get older and you’ve got less and less free time to fill.

Oh, well, I understand this sentiment but I’d ask everyone here to reevaluate why you hate them and then listen to these points to consider.

1. Cosmetic items are created mostly by artists. Artists are only needed during certain time of development. So this is a way to keep them on a project consistently or to salary them.

2. Most cosmetics are optional and add nothing to the game. In a single player game, just don’t pay for it. Evaluate each games value on the inclusions or exclusion of micro transactions. It’s not necessary to say “if it has them, it’s a worse game” because I’ve been ignoring them for awhile and my games are fine. Just evaluate the game as if they didn’t exist or as if they’re part of the price.

3. Micro transactions support ongoing development. These offers keep projects going. I like playing games like Deep Rock Galactic and Hell Let Loose which are both smaller games by smaller studios. They keep their community alive with OPTIONAL content while producing free updates. It’s a great deal.

And lastly 4. People who buy plenty of these cosmetics and other transactions, often called whales, are subsidizing games for you. It’s cheap money for a development team for someone who wants to buy boosts or cosmetics or whatever. So why wouldn’t they do it?

I absolutely agree.

I do still use the metric, mostly to demonstrate that something that’s expensive is still a good value. For example, I’ve spent hundreds on Paradox games, but I’ve gotten over a thousand hours from them, so I’ve gotten incredibly good value from it.

I’m patient because I hate buggy games, not strictly because of cost, though I’ll buy something on a good sale if I notice it. If games released mostly bug free, I’d buy a lot more games closer to launch. I don’t have a lot of friends who play games, so there’s no pressure to buy things say 1, so I wait until the updates settle down.

Huh, I’m a software engineer, and when I get home, I’m excited to do stuff on my computer. I even like building software at home for fun.

I’m not big into tinkering with game settings though, I am much more excited about playing or making games than tuning them. So maybe that’s what you don’t like? I find the Steam Deck’s defaults to be extremely reasonable and it feels just like a console.