Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by favourable 821 days ago
> that paying money to play might be just a re-invention of the 80's coin-operated arcades

I agree. Game companies don't create games for free, and if they do, then they're siphoning off personal data and selling it to the highest bidder to support themselves. The business model should be clear: if you're getting a game for free, developers need to state how they make money for transparency purposes.
1 comments
samstave 818 days ago
You didnt own an video game cabinet in the 80s and had to pay rent so people could comple play it and put money into it so you could pay the rent for the place for the people to pay to play (an arcade)....

Today we buy games, and we own the arcade. Fuck ingame extras.

Razor1911 forever /s

link
CyberDildonics 818 days ago
You didnt own an video game cabinet in the 80s and had to pay rent so people could comple play it and put money into it so you could pay the rent for the place for the people to pay to play (an arcade)....

What?

link
samstave 818 days ago
conflating that people used to pay video coin-ops fro games to similar to DLC is ridiculous.

The coins were paying for the games, the arcade rent, etc...

With home machines, you own the arcade - so you just buy the game once... dlc payments are nothing like coins for cabinets.

link
HenryBemis 818 days ago
Continuing.. you buy/own the console, you pay for electricity/rent/mortgage, you pay for repairs, for the new/upgraded equipment, etc. So the cost is heavily externalised to the user, as a trade-off to comfort (hey you get to play from a couch/comfy chair instead of standing up).

So it depends on the usage to see if you spend less, more or break even on the costs.

I don't include cheating (i.e. after finishing D2 a few times, I started using SaveGameEditors so I can play with 'this' or 'that' set) as this has immense value that could not easily be made in an arcade.

link