The idea that getting somebody to play a game for 300 hours, must have meant that the devs put in a ton of work, and therefore need extra money in return doesn't always hold true.
Agree with you. My point isn't that they need or even deserve, but that it is reasonable that they try to make more money if they can keep you satisfied for longer, but that it need to be done in a good way (which almost never is).
It doesn't take that much for a game to keep somebody interested for a full year. They just need to design the game in order to make it compelling, instead of fun. Take the +100 score you get for killing somebody in a CoD game. That +100 that pops up is a little piece of reward for your brain. It trains your brain to keep going back to CoD, whether you truly enjoy CoD or not. When you find yourself going back to a game over and over again, even though said game makes you rage, that is a sign of addiction.
Agree with it, for the good or for the bad I tire fast of this type of thing.
True, but yes we all know that isn't what is going to happen.
Yes they are, can't disagree. On the other hand being egoist I do prefer companies make their money like that and keep my game cheap and dropping in price faster since will be other people paying for it than asking price of the game rise or the time to pricecut becomes much longer.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."