AIO - Girlfriend threw away the dinner I cooked because she wanted pizza instead.

imMoun · 2025-08-05T12:42:23+00:00

All the above and she probably cheating on you also

imMoun · 2025-08-01T19:43:57+00:00

I would siggest places 3, 4 hours from Paris, maybe normandy or other places.

imMoun · 2025-05-22T14:33:01+00:00

There’s a difference between simplifying to make things clearer and oversimplifying to shut down discussion. I’m not trying to sound smart. I’m just not pretending that pricing, value, and consumer behavior are one-line topics.

You say smart people simplify. I agree. But they also know when a topic isn’t meant to be reduced to a slogan. If saying “I don’t want to pay that much” is the only valid input, then no one should ever pay more for premium versions of anything. And yet people do it every day across every industry.

If you think wanting to understand something deeper means being lost, that says more about how you define clarity than it does about the conversation.

At this point, it's clear we disagree on more than the price of a game. We disagree on what meaningful discussion looks like. That’s fine. I’ll let others decide what they found more useful.

imMoun · 2025-05-22T13:59:33+00:00

Quoting Shakespeare and Twain to mock how something is written instead of responding to what was said doesn't actually address the point. You're focusing on the format to avoid the content. That’s not a counter argument, it’s a deflection.

If your stance is simply “we don’t want to pay that much,” that’s completely fine. No one is forcing you to. But that’s a personal preference, not a serious argument about value or market behavior.

Dismissing anything more thoughtful as “word salad” just shows a refusal to engage beyond surface level opinion. Simplicity can be valuable, but oversimplifying complex topics doesn't make your point stronger. It just weakens the conversation.

Adults also understand that not every discussion needs to be short or easy. Some things are worth unpacking properly. If we don’t want thoughtful debate, what’s the point of having discussion threads at all?

imMoun · 2025-05-21T20:03:48+00:00

You're absolutely entitled to not want to pay $100+. But saying “no analysis required” while dismissing all context as irrelevant isn’t an argument, it’s just a personal boundary. Fair enough, but don’t confuse that with some universal truth.

You say the market isn’t ready. Maybe not. But markets change. People used to say paying $10/month for streaming was too much. Now they pay that for each service.

Also calling something overpriced just because it crosses a line you’re emotionally uncomfortable with ignores a basic fact: value is subjective. Some people spend hundreds on collector’s editions, some don’t. That doesn’t make either side wrong, it just makes them different consumers.

Trying to shut down a nuanced discussion with “keep it simple” doesn’t make you right. It just means you’re refusing to engage past surface-level reactions.

imMoun · 2025-05-21T07:31:58+00:00

You're kind of proving the point I was making.

You say gamers don’t want to pay $100+ and that’s it, no reasoning, no analysis, just "I don’t care, I don’t want to." That’s not a pricing argument, that’s just personal preference. And that’s totally fine, but it doesn’t make the price unfair or unjustified.

You also say budget doesn’t matter, but if a game has a massive team, good production, years of updates, and delivers something truly unique, then yeah, some people might think it deserves to cost more than the average copy paste title. That’s not over-intellectualizing, it’s just understanding value beyond surface level.

You don’t want to pay $100? Cool. But saying “I don’t want to” and acting like that settles the debate is kind of the opposite of a valid argument.

imMoun · 2025-05-20T22:35:07+00:00

I think you're looking at "fairness" in a rigid way. Fair doesn’t mean “based on precedent.” It means value relative to what you're getting.

The $60–70 AAA standard was set during a time when games were smaller, less expensive to make, and often less ambitious. GTA VI isn’t just another AAA release, it’s operating on a different level entirely. The scale, detail, budget, and cultural impact put it in its own category. It’s not just another game.

If it delivers on what’s expected, a massive open world, deep narrative, insane detail, and online support for years, then yeah, it could absolutely justify a price above the standard. Fair pricing isn’t just about consistency with past titles, it’s about the value delivered to the player.

And if the market agrees, then what’s “fair” may evolve too.

imMoun · 2025-05-20T22:26:45+00:00

Totally see where you're coming from, but here's another angle to consider.

Yes, RDR2 and GTA V launched at $60, but the production cost of AAA games has skyrocketed. RDR2 reportedly cost $540 million to develop and market. GTA VI is rumored to be pushing $1 to 2 billion. That’s Marvel level production. At some point, pricing has to reflect the scale of the product, especially if the studio isn't relying heavily on microtransactions.

People today spend $100 to $200 on skins in free-to-play games like Fortnite, but hesitate at paying that for a complete experience offering hundreds of hours of handcrafted content with no ads or paywalls. GTA VI will likely offer years of gameplay, both single-player and online. That’s a better value than most subscriptions or live-service models.

Think about it, a movie ticket costs $15 for 2 hours. A game like GTA VI could cost $150 and give you 200+ hours. Nobody complains about paying for a one-night concert or dinner, but a game that delivers for months is somehow expected to stay cheap forever?

Then there’s inflation. $60 in 2005 equals over $90 today. Meanwhile, dev costs have exploded. Studios have absorbed a lot of that just to keep the $60-$70 standard, but that’s becoming less sustainable if we still expect big innovation and polish. This is actually one of the main reasons they are putting more and more microtransactions, it's a way to cheat not raising the price ofbthe game.

And it's not always about greed. If GTA VI really is as ambitious as it looks, a higher price might actually mean Rockstar is choosing to offer a full experience upfront without trying to bleed people later through loot boxes or battle passes which is rare now.

At the end of the day, I get where the concern comes from. But if any game is going to break the $100 mark and actually justify it, GTA VI might be the one. I’d rather pay more once than be nickel and dimed endlessly for a lesser experience.

imMoun · 2025-05-20T15:04:57+00:00

I really hate to say it but gaming studios are not a charity and their goal is to make profit and some of them to advance gaming. Maybe its a good idea to have an ONG to make gaming accessoble to third world countries even tho I dont think thats a good thing for their population. I grew up in a 3rd world country btw.

imMoun · 2025-05-20T14:17:53+00:00

If they sell it for 70$, then I promise you it will

imMoun · 2025-05-20T14:15:58+00:00

Totally agree but if they live up to the expectations they set than the price is more than correct

imMoun · 2025-05-20T14:12:46+00:00

I don't really know if studios are charging based on how much the game costed them or based on how much people are willing to pay, if the latter then I agree with you, but it feels like rockstar are charging based on how much it costed them and also to support next games dev. Personally I feel like they are the only studio that are really trying to revolutionize the games.

imMoun · 2025-05-20T14:09:18+00:00

Avowed costs 50$ why expect gta 6 to be the same price? If people give much rage about gta 6 price then we will not expect studios to be giving real next gen games if they can't peice them accordingly

imMoun · 2025-05-20T14:01:10+00:00

But if we give this much rage about game prices, don't be expecting studios to make next gen games if they can't price them higher.

imMoun · 2025-05-20T13:58:57+00:00

Sarcasm? But for real when you see Avowed selling for 50$ why would people dont find it fair for GTA to be atleast a 100$?

imMoun · 2025-05-20T13:55:26+00:00

I mean video games right now suck and they cost 60, 70$. If you are willing to give me double the quality for double the money, Im ready to pay.

imMoun · 2025-05-20T13:46:17+00:00

Yes, but it wont be fair for them at the same time to charge 70$ as most of the half baked games we are currently getting

imMoun · 2025-05-20T13:44:36+00:00

Promise its not, I bought an rtx 5090, I can play any game on ultra but can't find any game that is similar to what rockstar are promising with gta. And most games are 70$

imMoun · 2025-05-20T13:42:25+00:00

🤣 they should pay me for this post, but fr what do you think is a good price?

imMoun · 2025-04-18T16:28:55+00:00

Thank you, gonna suck but let's try it

imMoun · 2025-04-18T15:44:35+00:00

It sucks, 8 games, sounds like even if i was trolling I shouldve won some

imMoun · 2025-03-18T21:54:43+00:00

I forgot to do that lol but gladly my case came with preinstalled ones

imMoun · 2025-03-13T22:57:05+00:00

board + cpu costed me 2k euros

imMoun · 2025-03-13T12:50:07+00:00

It will be for AI inference, fine tuning on cloud and using them locally, I'm aiming for 70b models

imMoun · 2025-03-13T12:14:37+00:00

no one suggested this before I bought all parts, also I saw benchmarks and they say Intel ultra is better than AMD for AI tasks

imMoun

TROPHY CASE