• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Joykilling Culture Of 'AAA' Games (The Jimquisition)

-To the devs for trying to sabotage their launch with an absurd outlier review which he has since tried to distance himself from.
-To his viewership for publishing a bullshit 'revenge' review which was not well thought out and wasn't a fair representation of his time with the game.

He made a non-apology apology in his Hellblade rereview which was actually quite galling.
He had nothing to apologize for. To say he sabotaged their launch is overly dramatic. Any damaging affect to their launch was merited if it reflected his experience, that is the risk you take when releasing a buggy game.

I agree that 1/10 was too low, the game was effectively a very short campaign with a very unsatisfying ending. Probably a 3 or 4 out of 10 rather than a 1, but scoring a game too low, as long as it reflects his experience, isn't something any reviewer needs to apologize for.
 
Of course the first thing Gearbox do is double the price and throw in the arbitrary pre-order DLC and season pass

Wow, really?

I was kind of interested in the game and wanted to buy it once they were done with it (because I have a big backlog) but I guess I'm okay not playing it.
 

angelic

Banned
Who cares about the price. The publisher can put whatever price tag on their games that they want. If market is not willing to accept that, fine, and it will drop quickly enough.

Same with season pass. If you are stupid enough to buy into it, then it's your own fucking fault.

So all the bad things of the industry are the fault of the consumer, great logic.
 

Forward

Member
OH come on don't act like Gearbox isn't the epitome of what's wrong with AAA dev right now.

I feel bad for the game's devs, but they signed the contract so whatever. Pretty sure this doesn't do a thing but harm the game for the price hike.

They would have to be AAA, for that.
 
The game is probably gonna go through extensive changes now that they have funding. Maybe it will now resemble close to the E3 trailer than a simple rogue-like survival game. The game got a bad first impression so the devs really have nothing to lose the more I think about it.

I disagree. I think they have a lot to lose bumping the price and making it a full "AAA experience" with season pass and all.

Look at the general reaction to the price hike and season pass. Put me aside, think about what happens if those reactions translate to sales, and that hurts both Gearbox and the game's devs. That means BOTH parties are one step closer to not making products. I dunno about you, but I sure liked Borderlands and want BL3 already, and I think if We Happy Few delivers on the original reveal story bits as a full game it will be great... so, I want both to succeed, but I think this is just a bad idea on both ends.

I played the EA version. I refunded it because it was nothing like what I wanted from the previews in shows - I wanted a dystopian Bioshock-esque game with a Brave New World twist. Once I got past the nice story bit (a ~10min intro if I recall correctly) it was just another survival game with a new art style splashed on. But, it had promise. So if in the event that this extra year and price hike delivers on their promises, I will buy it and come into the OT saying how wrong I was. I will have a renewed faith and hope that Gearbox can come back from Battleborn and actually make a real sequel to Borderlands 2 (which I THINK a lot of us want) , and We Happy Few will be that Brave New World-dystopia brought to life in a Bioshock way.

The problem is I just think this will tank the game and increase the chances we never see a Borderlands 3 because of poor business decisions on Gearbox's part.
 

ocean

Banned
So all the bad things of the industry are the fault of the consumer, great logic.
It's true though. All businesses do is measure and meet consumer demand. The only reason why a publisher would refrain from charging a full US$60, or selling DLC, or having micro transactions, would be if the cost of implementing these things outweighed the extra income.

Gearbox probably thought "this is a niche game which will appeal to X people. I can double the price and lose less than half my sales, so total profit will be higher". They also probably thought "if I sell a season pass, enough people will pay me in advance that we can fund expanded content without putting our capital upfront; people will pay in advance for it".

Jim Sterling is a smart guy who panders to stupid people with this persona of his. The whole "DLC is bad, MTs are terrible, season passes are the devil" argument is childish and done to death at this stage really.
 
He addressed his bullshit review, yeah, but he back pedalled because the game was receiving stellar reviews elsewhere and because he knew his video was a bad look that made him look petty. He didn't apologise to the devs for trying to sabotage their launch.

Lol sabotage their launch? Fuck outta here
 

TheSun

Member
Huh, Lisa the Painful also has devious pills called joy. Also Jim was there too.

Welp, shame it had to be like this. I knew what I was getting in when I kickstarted this. The whole Gearbox situation on the other hand was not something I hoped.
 

120v

Member
i know it was Early Access and all but wasn't this game kind of a flop even by EA standards?

i just find it weird they'd "convert" this of all things to a standard AAA release complete with a collectors edition and all.

still want to try this game but.. yeah, guess i'll hold off another year or two
 

HeatBoost

Member
I'm really curious what the sales difference is between launching a game at $60 bucks and dropping it to $20 later and launching it at $20 and keeping it there is.
 

angelic

Banned
It's true though. All businesses do is measure and meet consumer demand. The only reason why a publisher would refrain from charging a full US$60, or selling DLC, or having micro transactions, would be if the cost of implementing these things outweighed the extra income.

Gearbox probably thought "this is a niche game which will appeal to X people. I can double the price and lose less than half my sales, so total profit will be higher". They also probably thought "if I sell a season pass, enough people will pay me in advance that we can fund expanded content without putting our capital upfront; people will pay in advance for it".

Jim Sterling is a smart guy who panders to stupid people with this persona of his. The whole "DLC is bad, MTs are terrible, season passes are the devil" argument is childish and done to death at this stage really.

Nah, I agree there is some logic in that the market accepting bullshit = more bullshit, but it still doesnt mean the person signing it off deserves support. There are good companies and bad ones, and Gearbox are very definitely in the latter camp.
 
Nah, I agree there is some logic in that the market accepting bullshit = more bullshit, but it still doesnt mean the person signing it off deserves support. There are good companies and bad ones, and Gearbox are very definitely in the latter camp.

And where does that leave the developers?
 
Oh how naïve of you Jim: of COURSE publishers have a "AAA rulebook" that mandates things like season passes, pre-order content, multiple editions, etc. Mostly it's their marketing department that mandates those things.

And it's not hard to understand why: Whenever a company sees any other company have success with any new monetization scheme, whatever it is, they will all immediately try to jump on that bandwagon too. It's not like they call each other to scheme those things out. When EA first came out with online passes, it wasn't long before other devs followed suit and implemented their own. They basically just try to copy the current market leaders. Don't wonder why everything is open world now.

What's sad is that games typically start out free of such shackles. When in pre-production, game concepts are made with the simple goal of producing a solid, fun game, like back in the days. It's only further down the line, when the game has been prototyped to hell and back and is ready to enter production, that the game will drop on the marketing dept's desk. And this is where it all goes to shit. The marketing department will typically request changes to make the game as "marketable" as possible in their eyes. This includes all the pre-order, season pass, etc. bullshit. I've seen many productions be broken to literal tears by the changes marketing depts have asked of them.
 
the juxtaposition between "we happy few" story and their trans-formative business practice after being picked up by Gearbox is soooo bizarre...
 

Freddo

Member
Ugh, Gearbox.

Nintendo don't need to make their games cheaper. The installed base on their platforms are mainly interested in Nintendo game, so they will pay up. (As evidenced by the fact that they bought their unusually overpriced hardware in the first place. Their excellent games are worth the premium to fans.) Customers on PC are not locked into Steam the way that customers on consoles are locked into the platform holders' stores. If Valve goes asking for as high a cut as Sony and Nintendo, someone else will come along and ask for much smaller cut, giving lower prices. Valve needs to take a lower cut to compete with other storefronts. As for the reason for the discrepancy between Sony and MS, I'm not sure. I think maybe Sony is more interested in building new IP, where lower price points help draw in new customers, while Microsoft is content to milk their already popular IP until they go out of the hardware business with a whimper.
Valve doesn't take a lower cut. All the major digital stores take 30%.

The reason why games are ~$10 cheaper on PC than consoles is the same as always, license fees. Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft require a fee for every sold game for their system, that publishers have to pay to release a game to their system. This is how it been for decades, long before the introduction of digital stores. While releasing anything for PC doesn't require anything similar.
 
Valve doesn't take a lower cut. All the major digital stores take 30%.

Valve doesn't take a lower cut

The reason why games are ~$10 cheaper on PC than consoles is the same as always, license fees. Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft require a fee for every sold game for their system, that publishers have to pay to release a game to their system. This is how it been for decades, long before the introduction of digital stores. While releasing anything for PC doesn't require anything similar.

Valve takes a lower cut


?????????
 

Akronis

Member
It's true though. All businesses do is measure and meet consumer demand. The only reason why a publisher would refrain from charging a full US$60, or selling DLC, or having micro transactions, would be if the cost of implementing these things outweighed the extra income.

Gearbox probably thought "this is a niche game which will appeal to X people. I can double the price and lose less than half my sales, so total profit will be higher". They also probably thought "if I sell a season pass, enough people will pay me in advance that we can fund expanded content without putting our capital upfront; people will pay in advance for it".

Jim Sterling is a smart guy who panders to stupid people with this persona of his. The whole "DLC is bad, MTs are terrible, season passes are the devil" argument is childish and done to death at this stage really.

In a vacuum this might be true, but consumer trust in a company also factors into purchases.
 

Landford

Banned
That is so imensely sad. The game doesnt have a story now, but it was always going to have one in the trailer vibe. It has a charm of its own and the gameplay mechanics now are really polished.

Then they went and fucking destroyed what little good faith I had in it solely by signing this deal with fucking Gearbox of all companies.

I am truly heartbroken. I doubt much of the devs and artists of the game signed off on this bullshit. Game was going to be amazing.
 

Van Bur3n

Member
This was probably one of his more hilarious ones. I love Jimmy, my boy.

It's also quite true, however, how many disappointing turns this game has taken.
 
1) It's not "cut OR license fee" on consoles, it's "cut AND license fee".
2) Even if it wasn't, a flat fee means that selling badly, already a bad scenario, is made much worse. It makes game dev that much more of a gamble.

but effectively 30% cut + license fee > 30% cut

which was my argument

are we sure it still works that way with a flat fee, by they way?

can't be a very high one considering how some very niche indies, and stuff like f2p games, now go on psn
 
Top Bottom