-
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.
Pick Your Poison: $70-80 games, Loot Box+DLC, or Worse Graphics/Polish/Smaller Scale
- Thread starter Dusk Golem
- Start date
Clearly worse graphics or smaller scale. I really, really don't care about tiny strides for huge costs at this point. Games like Hellblade, Soma, Observer, Edith Finch, Ruiner, and so many more prove that it's absolutely possible to make a very, very visually pleasing game on a much smaller budget.
Industry wide, I'd really like to see the evolution of tools that make it easier and cheaper for small developers to animate things like faces more convincingly.
Industry wide, I'd really like to see the evolution of tools that make it easier and cheaper for small developers to animate things like faces more convincingly.
These are already options when you move the DLC portion from "B" to "A".
A. Many, in fact close to all, AAA games have deluxe editions/season passes that cost $70-80.
Too many examples to mention, but let's just say South Park or Wolfenstein for example as they haven't been mentioned with much controversy.
B. Loot boxes, don't have to give examples as this board is already acutely aware
C. We have these too - R&C, ReCore, Indie Scene, Uncharted Lost Legacy, Dishonored Outsider standalone game (I'm personally thrilled as we have seen a revival of this)
We already have these options to pick and choose.
I think the market will continue to have the choices as laid out above for the next few years.
EDIT:
A. Many, in fact close to all, AAA games have deluxe editions/season passes that cost $70-80.
Too many examples to mention, but let's just say South Park or Wolfenstein for example as they haven't been mentioned with much controversy.
B. Loot boxes, don't have to give examples as this board is already acutely aware
C. We have these too - R&C, ReCore, Indie Scene, Uncharted Lost Legacy, Dishonored Outsider standalone game (I'm personally thrilled as we have seen a revival of this)
We already have these options to pick and choose.
I think the market will continue to have the choices as laid out above for the next few years.
EDIT:
Beaten to death like loot boxes.
Battlechili
Banned
Just make smaller games.
Mimic current Japanese developers like Gust, Marvelous, Compile Heart, Spike Chunsoft, and NIS. You don't need to make huge AAA titles. Smaller games are just fine.
Mimic current Japanese developers like Gust, Marvelous, Compile Heart, Spike Chunsoft, and NIS. You don't need to make huge AAA titles. Smaller games are just fine.
Duchess O'Death
Member
I would pay $80 but that's not gonna happen so loot boxes all day every day. Never scale down graphics and polish!
No thanks!
No thanks!
I mostly play indies, mid-tier games and Nintendo games. I think that Horizon is the only contemporary AAA game I've played in the last 3 or more years. Before that I played Red Dead and AssCreed II, in like 2014. Also I played Bioshock for the first time two years ago and Arkham Asylum this year, so I definitely don't care about state of the art graphics, super advanced technology or 8K resolution.
How about none of the above?
Let's instead have everyone up their game instead and make Witcher 3 quality $60 major, high quality titles with major, high quality and beefy expansion packs.
Or Wolfenstein TNO, which also had a great Stand Alone Expansion that you could also play without owning TNO.
Microtransactions, Loot Boxes, etc, are about making More Money that Major Publishers can stuff into Tax Havens. Not about keeping development studios afloat.
Let's instead have everyone up their game instead and make Witcher 3 quality $60 major, high quality titles with major, high quality and beefy expansion packs.
Or Wolfenstein TNO, which also had a great Stand Alone Expansion that you could also play without owning TNO.
Microtransactions, Loot Boxes, etc, are about making More Money that Major Publishers can stuff into Tax Havens. Not about keeping development studios afloat.
Conkerkid11
Member
Why does it have to be loot boxes + DLC?
Loot boxes were supposed to replace DLC, not be combined.
The base cost of the game is enough to fund the vanilla game. Any additional content is generally funded through the cost of DLC or loot boxes. Why should I buy the DLC that loot boxes are being put in place to fund?
Loot boxes were supposed to replace DLC, not be combined.
The base cost of the game is enough to fund the vanilla game. Any additional content is generally funded through the cost of DLC or loot boxes. Why should I buy the DLC that loot boxes are being put in place to fund?
I don't think adding less polish to the equation makes much sense because that's not always directly tied to budget, but rather a project's scope. But I'll take the last option for sure.
I already play almost exclusively indie and niche japanese games, which are often far more "modest" than the games where you usually find all that vile trash.
The bigger and more overwhelmingly feature ridden AAA games have become, the less interest I've had, starting from last gen.
I already play almost exclusively indie and niche japanese games, which are often far more "modest" than the games where you usually find all that vile trash.
The bigger and more overwhelmingly feature ridden AAA games have become, the less interest I've had, starting from last gen.
Dusk Golem
A 21st Century Rockefeller
Hey everyone, this is Dusk Golem aka AestheticGamer. I have posted on NeoGAF since 2011, and have decided to resign. I have enjoyed posting about horror games here for years, but I no longer wish to support the site and will be leaving for good. I will still be around the internet, I go by AestheticGamer on YouTube, I make games on Steam as Yai Gameworks, and I plan to go by Dusk Golem on other forums. I'll be joining an off-set of the GAF community leaving to try other ventures like ResetEra (Official Twitter for that here: https://twitter.com/reseteraforum ). I hope some of you who read this may consider it, and I plan to try to expose more people to horror games in the years to come. Just not here.
I hope you all are having a good day, and know I always loved the community, and in the end it's the community I'm going to stick with, not the site itself. If you want to follow me, my official Twitter is here: https://twitter.com/AestheticGamer1
I hope you all are having a good day, and know I always loved the community, and in the end it's the community I'm going to stick with, not the site itself. If you want to follow me, my official Twitter is here: https://twitter.com/AestheticGamer1
WaterAstro
Member
How about the useless CEOs take a cut in their paycheque.
PshycoNinja
Member
This. Every publisher wants an "MMO-like" base where they can get as much as they can out of the consumer. The model is successful with MMOs so why not other online games? Many mobile and MMO ideas are making it into console game genres and now we are starting to see a push back of that idea.
Regardless of rising budgets in games, it's not like publishers are suddenly going to desire to turn the money faucet off once they've figured out how to turn it on. The only way these things go away is if consumers stop paying for them. If publishers could sell a $200 retail game with microtransactions, they would. (In fact, they often do.)
Fix-It Felix. Jr.
Member
Finished games with loot and DLC as an added bonus to extend the lifespan of the title. I get that DLC helps financially, but it's unfair to the consumer to intentionally refrain from including important parts of the game just to sell them later on for an additional cost. If you sell a game at full price, give a full product. Loot boxes should have items that were created after release, and not items that were put behind a paywall rather than being an unlockable. DLC should expand on stories, not be a main part of the story. It's a pretty simple construct, and many publishers, such as Blizzard and Nintendo, see success with it.
Brock Reiher
Banned
Blizzard is basically responsible for the loot box problem tho
Strangelove77
Member
Loot boxes + DLC
My apologies, my reading comprehension sucks.
To answer your question. I'm fine with "A", but have often enjoyed many, many games in "C"
"B" is the only choice I don't like.
Uno Venova
Banned
Why is better budget management not an option.
In addition to this, can we stop pretending that every game released today is worth $60 per console release? There used to be some variety to physical releases in terms of pricing but the minimum nowadays is $60 outside of the odd Ubisoft game like Grow Home or Child of Light.
This is silly. So quickly we forget the massive amount of high quality games that came out during the first half of the year. Games at $60 or below. With few or no loot boxes or DLC with great graphics and depth.
No need to choose. Just choose the right games that get everything right.
Quite a few games launched just this year with variable pricing. Sony launched some. Smaller publishers launched quite a few. Open your eyes.
No need to choose. Just choose the right games that get everything right.
Quite a few games launched just this year with variable pricing. Sony launched some. Smaller publishers launched quite a few. Open your eyes.
killatopak
Member
Smaller Scale.
It's always the big AAA games that have loot boxes. Smaller scale just means they need to use less money and if they still add MT then fuck them, I won't buy your game.
It's always the big AAA games that have loot boxes. Smaller scale just means they need to use less money and if they still add MT then fuck them, I won't buy your game.
ElephantShell
Banned
I already pay $80 for games 
CanUKlehead
Member
$80 and give me my fucking cheat codes back.
Playing FFIX HD (9999 damage, Ffwd mode) made me realise how much I missed them.
But yeah, $80 to pay for develoent costs, ok, games are due for inflation.
But!
If you're charging $80, I'll take pre-order bonuses and reasonable DLC, but no loot boxes or microtransactions.
Playing FFIX HD (9999 damage, Ffwd mode) made me realise how much I missed them.
But yeah, $80 to pay for develoent costs, ok, games are due for inflation.
But!
If you're charging $80, I'll take pre-order bonuses and reasonable DLC, but no loot boxes or microtransactions.
What game does this? Shadow of War doesn't, so I have no idea what you're referring to.
NightShift
Member
3 although not really on polish and scale. AAA games have cost way too much for a while now. My favourite two games this year (Nier Automata and Hellblade) have shown you don't need a ridiculously high budget to make a great game with the same scope.
This. I would be more choosy and wait for sales more but I be ok to pay $80 for a game I know I'll like.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I mean I would be very happy to pay $70 one or two times a year for a game I care about like Wolfenstein II and keep paying $60 for titles with the level of polish as say Nier: Automata
i don't really agree with the premise AAA is done for. this problem has been around since well into gen 7 and has become somewhat more manageable, and will be more so as the industry adapts.
that comes along with warts and all but there isn't even much of a clear line between AAA and AA these days and it'll continue to get blurred in spite of insidious money grabs. it won't be pretty but it's not the apocalypse either
that comes along with warts and all but there isn't even much of a clear line between AAA and AA these days and it'll continue to get blurred in spite of insidious money grabs. it won't be pretty but it's not the apocalypse either
Option 3. We've hit a point in gaming where I personally am satisfied with both the current level of graphical fidelity in most AAA games, and the scale and amount of content in open-world games. I'd be fine with next-gen games having a similar level of visual detail to what we have now at 4K, and scaling down all these bloated open-world games could only be a good thing, Imo. Less polish is the only thing I'm iffy about, but... well, it's the lesser of three-evils when compared with Loot Crates or $80 games (I don't care how good your game is, I ain't paying that, lol).
NullPointer
Member
I'd take option 1 and 3.
Raise prices, fine, but don't still saddle me with microtransactions and loot boxes. I'm also down for expansion DLC, but don't ever try to sell me consumables. And if you sell some uber expensive Ultimate Edition, make it the definitive version, that includes ALL content for the game at launch and anything else down the line.
Beyond that smaller scale games are just fine by me. I appreciate big blockbusters with insane production values, but mechanics are the heart of a game, and those can be done well without breaking the bank.
I'd gladly swap all of the expensive cinematics and semi-cinematic sequences of sprinting around while the entire world explodes and falls apart all around you for some more direct gameplay content.
Raise prices, fine, but don't still saddle me with microtransactions and loot boxes. I'm also down for expansion DLC, but don't ever try to sell me consumables. And if you sell some uber expensive Ultimate Edition, make it the definitive version, that includes ALL content for the game at launch and anything else down the line.
Beyond that smaller scale games are just fine by me. I appreciate big blockbusters with insane production values, but mechanics are the heart of a game, and those can be done well without breaking the bank.
I'd gladly swap all of the expensive cinematics and semi-cinematic sequences of sprinting around while the entire world explodes and falls apart all around you for some more direct gameplay content.
More_Badass
Member
When you say worse graphics, do you mean less realistic or do you mean unpolished? I dont think framing the former as worse graphics is exactly fair
And smaller scale isnt exactly a bad thing. If anything, games with smaller scale in terms of world size but more gameplay complexity, or shorter with leaner pacing would be welcome among AAA games
And upping the price would be fine as well IMO. Indie games range from $1 to $40+, yet AAA games are stuck at $60, with the rare $40 mid-tier release
And smaller scale isnt exactly a bad thing. If anything, games with smaller scale in terms of world size but more gameplay complexity, or shorter with leaner pacing would be welcome among AAA games
And upping the price would be fine as well IMO. Indie games range from $1 to $40+, yet AAA games are stuck at $60, with the rare $40 mid-tier release
Holundrian
Unconfirmed Member
I choose witcher 3.
For SP: 3 followed by 1. Stuff like Souls games don't even have moving mouths for 90% of characters talking and I don't give a fuck. Nevermind playing 3DS and rough around the edges Japanese games besides Souls stuff.
For MP? 2 is fine as long as lootboxes cover the DLC needed to play.
EDIT: And JUST DLC for SP is fine. Should be reasonably substantial and satisfying though even if it runs $20 or higher. I'm past the majority of this bite sized junk.
For MP? 2 is fine as long as lootboxes cover the DLC needed to play.
EDIT: And JUST DLC for SP is fine. Should be reasonably substantial and satisfying though even if it runs $20 or higher. I'm past the majority of this bite sized junk.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
I avoid EA, Activision, Ubisoft, and Take Two games so i never really run into this problem.
ButteryPie
Member
I can agree with jank and loot boxes, but opposing $80 games is entitlement and/or ignorant of how games are actually made.
Tavernacle12
Member
Multiplayer Games - Loot Boxes instead of paid DLC so there is no player-base splintering. I'm fine having lootboxes if it means I get new characters and maps for free (so long as the boxes themselves can be earned within reason in-game).
Single Player - I'm fine with DLC so long as it's not content already on the disc I have to pay extra for. I like having new reasons to return to single player games I like.
Single Player - I'm fine with DLC so long as it's not content already on the disc I have to pay extra for. I like having new reasons to return to single player games I like.
Lower budget games.
Over the last several years I've already been playing and thoroughly enjoying a lot of lower-budget, janky games because of the creative risks they take. This option is essentially the reality on PC, where mid-budget games never really died.
The reason this is all happening is because the audience for console gaming didn't grow fast enough to keep up with ballooning budgets, so I think a viable solution would be for some developers to essentially live within the industry's current means. Just don't go too far in the niche direction like the Japanese developers pumping out loli games.
Over the last several years I've already been playing and thoroughly enjoying a lot of lower-budget, janky games because of the creative risks they take. This option is essentially the reality on PC, where mid-budget games never really died.
The reason this is all happening is because the audience for console gaming didn't grow fast enough to keep up with ballooning budgets, so I think a viable solution would be for some developers to essentially live within the industry's current means. Just don't go too far in the niche direction like the Japanese developers pumping out loli games.