Support NeoGAF

[Fix-It Felix. Jr.]

Blizzard is basically responsible for the loot box problem tho

There's a difference between what Blizzard does, and what games such as Shadow of War are doing. Blizzard creates these massive worlds that feel complete on their own, and then continues to expand on them for years through the implication of loot (and other DLC). I'm totally content with that approach, and I think it benefits the consumer.

 

[synce]

Worse graphics is not a poison. I'll happily play a new game with PS2-era graphics if it's fun.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

All of the above? I think the industry can support multiple pricing models and budget tiers, and more choice is better for the customer.

Personally I'm comfortable with big games with cosmetic lootboxes and cheaper games with smaller budgets. I'm pretty cheap though so I probably wouldn't stomach an upfront price increase.

 

[the1npc]

yup. but it's all based on games being $60 in the US, and I do believe that within the next two years, or at the latest when PS5 launches, games will go up another $10.

I hope not, ill just have to quit modern games then. Its not like I get paid in usd, shits expensive

 

[Steel]

The third option. Photo-realistic graphics mean nothing to me if the game feels like it's asking for your money constantly. Not to mention most of my favorite games aren't the best lookers for graphics or the biggest scale games. Large scale AAA games are generally a mile wide and an inch deep.

 

[Wiped89]

You know, loot boxes aren't as annoying as some people seem to think.

I don't buy them and I never have and I don't feel like I've missed out on anything. But in a way it's good to know that the developers can eke out some money to fund these expensive games in a shrinking console market from those stupid or wealthy enough to stump up the cash.

 

[Assanova]

Paid $70-$80 for games back in the N64 days. I have no problem going back to that.

 

[Gaogaogao]

"worse graphics" at a higher resolution and frame rate

 

[Humdinger]

I'll take lots more AA games, thanks.

I'm fine with DLC. I'm even fine with loot boxes, if they don't impact design.

 

[Dremorak]

Jim Sterling had a point about this. "AAA" games haven't been $60 for a while now. $60 gets you the base game, the lowest tier, if you want the full game with all the content you need to pay $100+. The only difference is that the content is rolled out over time instead of all up front.

I cant think of a game I've bought recently that I would describe like this? Zelda, horizon, Nier, Mario+rabbids, splatoon 2 all have DLC but its all optional and hasnt felt left out from the main game at all. I cant think of a time I've bought a game and thought "Well I guess I have to get the DLC to get the whole thing".

 

[biocat]

I think the easiest solution would be $100 nude modes in every game.

Honestly though, the game industry is really taking a hammering from mobile gaming. So, much more money is getting thrown in that direction, especially from newer generations of gamers. As much I would like to say, "indie games only" or whatever, AAA games add prestige to our hobby and I fear without them console gaming would become even more niche than it already seems to be heading.

 

[Atheerios]

Stop wasting so much money on marketing

 

[Assanova]

I cant think of a game I've bought recently that I would describe like this? Zelda, horizon, Nier, Mario+rabbids, splatoon 2 all have DLC but its all optional and hasnt felt left out from the main game at all. I cant think of a time I've bought a game and thought "Well I guess I have to get the DLC to get the whole thing".

NBA2K and Watching Dogs 2 were examples that he used. Silver and Gold editions.

 

[Gaogaogao]

I'll take lots more AA games, thanks.

I'm fine with DLC. I'm even fine with loot boxes, if they don't impact design.

It is literally impossible for them to not impact design

 

[10k]

I'll take the $80 games. I want all my content and high production values in one package for a one time fee. Fuck your loot boxes, microtransactions and multiplayer dlc. I won't support it.

 

[Arulan]

I'll easily take the latter, and I feel they'll likely be better games too. I think that once designing for everyone isn't a necessity due to the absurd budgets, you start to see much more focused and inspired design. RPGs like Divinity: Original SIn 2, The Age of Decadence, and Shadowrun: Dragonfall have nothing to envy from their AAA competitors. And the same can be said for hundreds of other recent examples across a variety of genres, many which aren't even represented by AAA games.

 

[Maximo]

Blizzard is basically responsible for the loot box problem tho

Blizzard didn't put Pay2Win lootboxes in Overwatch they started a trend they didn't pollute it, their partner Activision however...

 

[Shengar]

I'm fine with all of those options except lootbox. In regards to graphic, I honestly think that developer should have just forget about it and focused their energy elsewhere. We are not in the 80's era anymore where the graphics can be consisted of letters character. We are now already achieved a level of high diminishing return with graphic. As such grapichal improvement is like futile arms race which function is to balloon your budgeting.

Pushing the limit like Crysis and Horizon ZD is good. But not all game should be like this and look what happened to Crysis when they only to be known as graphic dude only.

 

[shaneo632]

I can rarely bring myself to play 20-plus hour games anymore, so I go for option 3.

 

[bounchfx]

Stop wasting so much money on marketing

never going to happen as far as AAA titles are concerned
you do understand why companies put a lot of money into marketing right? it works

 

[Emitan]

I'd rather have smaller scale games. Games have too much stuff to do in them.

 

[Dremorak]

NBA2K and Watching Dogs 2 were examples that he used. Silver and Gold editions.

2 games doesnt make it an industry trend tho right?

 

[AstroNut325]

Cosmetic loot boxes and DLC please. I love high production values.

 

[III-V]

I predict that content producers will continue to find ways to insert revenue streams after the initial point of sale. I am ok with this.

 

[Agent_ShortBus]

I'm ok with what we have now. Paying $35-$40 for a game on release day on PC is perfect. I haven't bought a single loot box in a game that includes them with real money and I've played a few. BF1, Overwatch, shadow of war, PUBG, Destiny 2(PS4). I'm not giving them any more of my money but if others do than that's their choice. Just don't up the price or I'll be buying less games than usual for sure.

 

[ASaiyan]

The last one, pretty please.

 

[Owensboro]

Let's see... I paid $80 for street fighter 2 on the SNES back in 92 (split with two friends). An inflation calculator puts that at... Holy shit, $140?

Yeah, I'd pay $80. No wonder that felt like a crapton of money to us, it was!

And honestly, I like loot boxes as long as the game isn't tuned to forcing you to buy them. For instance, Overwatch is great. I get one box when I play, it's a cosmetic that doesn't change anything in game, and I don't have the urge to buy them because I have the time to earn one every now and then.

 

[TreIII]

I was fine saving up for 70-80 for games back in the SNES and N64 eras. I could easily go back to that, IF it guaranteed more complete games.

 

[The Jazz Cabbage Master]

This reminds me of my favorite Eddie Izzard bit where your choices are between cake or death but there’s no more cake so your option is only, or death.

I love this bit

https://youtu.be/rMMHUzm22oE

Joke specifically begins 4:45

 

[ironmang]

We already have $80 games with loot boxes, don't we? And jank?

Games should have none of these, instead they should stop trying to take advantage of us.

What games are $80?

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

Let's see... I paid $80 for street fighter 2 on the SNES back in 92 (split with two friends). An inflation calculator puts that at... Holy shit, $140?

Yeah, I'd pay $80. No wonder that felt like a crapton of money to us, it was!

Wasn't until years later I figured out why my parents hated buying me games, they were so massively pricey in retrospect.

 

[badcrumble]

I think tasteful DLC that doesn't hurt the quality of the core game is possible AND can be profitable enough to keep both publishers and customers happy, tbh, but it requires thinking about it right from the start of development.

 

[Owensboro]

What games are $80?

Special editions I imagine. Like the destiny 2 "digital deluxe" version.

 

[JusDoIt]

I'd like to see a mix of A and C.

Let AAA games be $80 out the gate if that means a full featured game with free gameplay expansions. But if it means $80 plus a $20 season pass, we going too far.

But let there be a range of games below that tier that are smaller in scope or less cutting edge that cost $50, $40, $30 or whatever.

 

[More_Badass]

Are people against all post-release DLC, or are expansions and such fine? The notion that future content should be free or that stuff released after launch was all cut content that could have just been in the initial release seems kind of reductive

 

[Gamegeneral]

Give me smaller scale. Larger scale is unsustainable and causes good studios to implode.

 

[ironmang]

Special editions I imagine. Like the destiny 2 "digital deluxe" version.

Hmm, don't know why those count since you can find a regular edition for $60.

Anyways, I'm totally fine with cosmetic loot boxes, special editions, and dlc being the revenue streams that keep games at $60. I'd probably buy more smaller scale/cheaper games but they're usually digital only and often end up costing me more than the full retail games after trading/reselling is factored in.

Are people against all post-release DLC, or are expansions and such fine? The notion that future content should be free or that stuff released after launch was all cut content that could have just been in the initial release seems kind of reductive

I can definitely see a problem with the on disc DLC that used to be pretty big but ya it's kind of absurd to assume they'll keep working on new content for an already released game just to give it away for free.

 

[Owensboro]

Wasn't until years later I figured out why my parents hated buying me games, they were so massively pricey in retrospect.

It's so crazy to think about that now that I'm an adult. I can't imagine what I'd say If my kid said he wanted something worth over $l20. Like, hell no man.

And I did that CONSTANTLY to my parents. Man, I was a little shit.

Crap.... I'm old.

Edit: and the more messed up part is, that is just straight up inflation on MY $80. That doesn't account for anything else, assuming the infrastructure for the teams that make games today cost much, much more than the small teams that made games back then. (they HAVE to, right?)

 

[Jmille99]

If they have trouble selling games at $60, they will have an even harsher time trying to sell games at an even higher price. There will be some willing to do it, question is will it offset those who hold off for a cheaper price?

Frankly I think they need to better manage their games, lower expectations, stop producing content outside of the main game if the game itself cant promise to be profitable, etc.

So many games now feel bloated and padded out with things added in just to satisfy a checkmark for said genre (Im looking at you collectibles for example).

I miss the days of games being 15 hours or less. Rein in some of these games that dont need to be 30+ hours with forced side quests that dont add anything but busywork (such as fetch quests with rewards that arent worth it).

If I had to make any of those 3 decisions in the OP, it would be a hit to graphics, scope, etc. Isnt there a saying about creativity being bred from limitations? Maybe its time to start creating some limitations.

 

[Doctoglethorpe]

Graphics and scale. A lot of the best games coming out these days are being made by small dev teams that focus on style and substance over looking like a blockbuster movie.

 

[Gaardus]

None of my favorite games were considered boundary-pushers in scope or graphical fidelity for their time, so I'll go with C.

Edit: Well, there's Skyrim, but it gets flak for asset reuse.

 

[Spaced Harrier]

I don't understand why people act like the games industry is some fucking charity, and we should be grateful for their service. Especially the AAA space!

In case you didn't realise it, gaming is a massive business, and the companies make profits!

Not Apple level, but tidy all the same.

Sure not every company, not every game, but not every company it game deserves it.

The real killer, is when bad luck befalls a decent studio that doesn't deserve it and it tanks them. Or of course when they are bought by a giant, milked then put out to pasture.

 

[Ri'Orius]

A and C.

I enjoy indie games with simpler graphics (especially if they're well-done stylized stuff), but I don't want to give up on big AAA blockbusters entirely.

 

[v1perz53]

I have no issue with DLC and cosmetic only loot boxes. In fact, I quite like cosmetic only loot boxes. But if you mean every game has actual gameplay impacting loot boxes, I guess I'd pick "worse" graphics and polish, I didn't have any issues with graphics in the PS2 era.

 

[Vire]

Limit the scope for sure. There is no reason for some games to be as big as they are now. Open world 60+ hour experiences with voice acting, endless amounts of shitty side quests and high fidelity visuals is just not sustainable or necessary.

 

[Wagram]

I've always been fine with DLC when it's done properly. See anything Souls related, Left Behind, or The Witcher. That is how you do DLC.

I'm writing off games with loot boxes. I don't care if it's cosmetic only, affects gameplay, or whatever. IT IS NOT FUN to open a box and randomly get content. It artificially increases the length of a game and to be quite frank, your game doesn't matter enough for it to be so long.

 

[Deleted member 465307]

I'd go with $70-$80 games, which I think is what Deluxe Editions that include Season Passes basically are.

 

[//ARCANUM]

I will gladly pay $60 for a 12 hour single player game that is to the point, tells a good story, and doesn't have a bunch of fluff.

Hellblade was half that price and only about 8 hrs, but to me it was the *perfect* video game.

Super long games with tons of side quests and open worlds are a turn off for me.

 

[chrominance]

Absolutely scale back on the production values for me. Yakuza is a great storytelling engine despite half the assets being the same for years. The Witness was a fantastic game made with a small team that deserved the price they originally asked for it. Life Is Strange may very well have saved Dontnod. Many of my favorite games don't have cutting-edge graphics or massive setpieces, and for a long time I've felt the cost to get those things was often not worth it. So honestly, this is an easy choice for me.

(Also games are already $80 in Canada so it kind of feels like that reality is already here, even if it's because of currency fluctuations rather than game budgets)

 

[RedZaraki]

*Looks at the games I've actually pre-ordered*

None of the above.

/dealwithit