Plus, if you wait long enough, the game might be cheaper by the time you have saved up some money
okay, you are just projecting (not sure if that's the right word but you now what i'm saying).
I am not taking issue with this due to my own personal lack of finance, I am taking issue with irresponsible price gouging and the rampant commodification of the arts. As a developer yourself, your immediate response to put sole responsibility on the buyer (framing them as a consumer rather than the audience), is deeply disturbing. Every increase in cost CAN be justified but that doesn't always mean it should.
The term you're looking for is "asserting based on previous observations". I like to get engrossed in the media I partake in so, quite frankly, I don't play junky games like that myself. I'm expressing that I can't play junky games like that even passively because the price is so overinflated that it borders on parody. Even if I did just want to engage with something simply because it's culturally relevant (which there shouldn't be any problem with), the price tag is an absolute never in my opinion. I mention people "like that" because there's a cyclical nature to this decline being steadily enabled by those people that can't engage with videogames at a deeper level and it pisses me off. Realistically they aren't the problem, they are victims of predatory sales tactics, but that doesn't mean I'm going to talk about that sorta behaviour positively
Exactly, that's what i'm used to, i mostly buy at least one month. If i really want to buy first day, it has to be games i really want. And i will save few months before released. Just like i did since kid
No, we dont put responsibility to buyer.
Sure, I won't use it if it offends you, but I do have to point out that if you're conflating that word with people who are less abled, then to me, I personally think that's were the real issue lies. Both of us, in this context, know that I'm using it as a more severe variant of "stupid" which has just about as much historical precedence as the obsolete medical term that is often used deragtorily. You may not see it the same way as me, but I think censoring that word, somewhat validates that nastier, archaic meaning of it, whereas using it more loosely distances it from that origin. I think if you hear "*that word*", and think "disabled person", that's no good. However, obvs this is a communal space (I'm just really touchy on this subject, sorry), so if it might upset someone I won't use it.
Although technically true from the standpoint of immediate biological necessity, I strongly disagree that all art should be considered luxury. How long do you personally think you would last in the perfect living conditions without any form of media? Even in prison they're given artistic stimuli - with the denial of such materials being considered cruel punishment. A lack of stimuli can cause a domino of problems throughout the human body just as severe as dehydration, starvation, and malnutrition, and assuming you aren't in an active survival situation, that same lack of stimulation can even impact your own willingness to socialise, self-preserve, and regulate emotions properly. There are tonnes of studies illustrating the effects that confinement has on the human brain, generally with it being likened to torture. It's not just humans either, great white sharks and orca whales also show a severe decline in physical condition when kept in low stimulation environments. Fact of the matter is, you shouldn't feel embarassed or silly talking about media as if it's a big part of your life because really, it is (and those damn bastards are putting bigger and bigger price tags on it Waaaauuuuurrrrggggghhhh)
