Support NeoGAF

[BlitzerRadic]

How about releasing fewer mammoth games that need to sell absurd amounts?

The model so many games in the industry seem to want to adopt cannot possibly be maintainable or healthy for games in the long term.

If I must pick? Smaller, less pretty games.

There was a thread a while back that said some crazy high number of games never make a profit.

Even Shu said that only 3 or 4 out of 10 PS games make money and one or two cover the cost to make all the other games.

 

[hooijdonk17]

My poisons are retro PC gaming and contemporary indie gaming.

 

[ramparter]

70€ was fine for Breath of the Wild.

 

[Philippo]

What a shitty time to live in, it makes the amazing quality of 2017 a bit less exciting when you think about the long run.

Still if i'd have to choose i'd absolutely go with smaller scale, so many games already suffered from too big dreams resulting in unfocused projects.
Plus, smaller scale could mean cheaper games, and less need to cash on everything (aka loot boxes).

 

[Kanann]

Kiss my ass, go die and rot in hell.

All AAA pub.

 

[Heartskips]

I already pay way more than $80 in my country. Screw that. AAA shouldn't push prices even higher just because they can't control themselves when it comes to budget, I don't even care about the realism they try to push or the giant open worls with poor design they make.

 

[N30RYU]

Second hand profit... just sell physical games with a serial key in it... and put keys on the store for the ppl buying it second handed.

Physical second handed games will drop in value due the need of purchase a key and devs will make money out of second hand games selling the keys.

 

[Salty Rice]

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.

This is the truth.

People should stop acting like they need fucking loot boxes to make money.

 

[Kanann]

Second hand profit... just sell physical games with a serial key in it... and put keys on the store for the ppl buying it second handed.

Physical second handed games will drop in value due the need of purchase a key and devs will make money out of second hand games selling the keys.

Please, don’t bring that back.......

 

[bede-x]

I'll take higher prices or lower budgets. The latter is the most realistic.

Loot boxes/card games and similar isn't worth it at any price.

 

[gondwana]

the third choice shouldn't be framed as a poison and something to avoid. maybe it's positive, like a creative hormesis? many artists across different mediums will say that working within involuntary or self-imposed restraints can promote lateral thinking and create just as large if not larger a space for their creativity to manifest

 

[SMOK3Y]

Im all for dearer games if it keeps the quality up & don't turn every game into a GaaS as i love me a good single player game

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

I, for one, have been putting many hours into Battle Chasers (over 58 hours, last I checked). This is a game that has no micro transactions of any kind, is what many would consider "lower quality," and is only at a $30 price point. Yes, it was a Kickstarter game, but it didn't blow past their campaign threshold like, say, Mighty Number 9 or Bloodstained. It's a massive game, full of many great qualities I've missed over the years.

Basically, yes, it's not a graphical powerhouse, but it is a very long RPG (has new game+, too!) and features absolutely no micro transactions or loot boxes, yet is only retailing at $30. I'll take a "smaller scale" game from those options, I guess, because I've been having more fun with this game than I've had in years.

I think this is a good example of some of the problems - most indie games could only dream at having graphics as good as Battle Chasers and yet it's being held up as the cheap, "good enough" option. Even in the indie scene, the arms race is real.

 

[Link1110]

DLC is fine. Most games I play have DLC as extra costumes that I don't care about. If that makes money so that I don't have to pay more for what I do care about, make it so

 

[RooMHM]

Option C makes it seem as if most AAA games were already polished, unbugged, good looking and didn't run like shit...

 

[vkbest]

Publishers would not abandon the other revenue streams, even if they managed to get the base price up, unfortunately.

That considered, I'd go with option 3. As it is I love the indie market that has emerged since the death of AA publishing.

It´s not japanese games such as Yakuza, Nioh, Persona 5 or Nier AA?

 

[KarneeKarnay]

I'll take shitty graphics over any of the other crap.

There are dozens examples of games not needing great graphics, or even that much of a scale.

If selling a million copies is the only way to be successful, then maybe they need to change.

 

[test_account]

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.

One and done. Nice try Paul Marketing

Spoiler

/s

.

Are there any $80 base price game? Thats what the OP is talking about. I only know of $80 games that are limited/collector's edition.

Or I could continue supporting games like Divinity Original Sin 2, Observer, Cuphead, Battlechasers, Evil Within 2, A Hat In Time,ect that don't include any bullshit.

Those games would go under the lower budget/smaller scale.

 

[AgentLampshade]

I'll take smaller scale and a bit of jank please. Some of the best games came from devs trying to work around limitations in creative ways.

 

[20cent]

My last 2 years gaming activity has never been so busy and enjoyable, I mostly play 3ds, vita, psp and ps2 games. I'm fine with smaller budget and smaller scale games.
A big AAA once in a while is nice but releasing at least 3 of them a month is unrealistic for gamers and publisher perspectives.

 

[Cindres]

I'm up for none of the options for the simple reason all that extra money will just get funneled to the top and I have zero reason to believe any of these major pubs/studios will be letting their, likely already underpaid and overworked, staff see any of it.

 

[Daedardus]

It really depends. I think a couple of games a year that are really good and have a large scale can easily be sold for $10-20 higher. Take BotW for example, the game costed €70 MSRP in Europe, and while you would always want to pay the lowest price as possible as a customer, I was perfectly fine with paying that price. But all in all we need a good mix. I think there's still room for smaller scale games with good gameplay mechanics but not the best graphics and without all too much cutscenes or voice acting for a slightly lower price and/or digital only. Games are really diverse so they should be sold in really diverse pricing strategies too.

 

[mazillion]

Trouble is that if the "base" game justifies the price-tag, the whole argument collapses. In many cases it seems to me not about what some folks are getting for their money, but a perception that they should be entitled to all the extra bells and whistles on principle.

Its a position I don't feel that stands up under scrutiny because, of course, getting more for the same money would be good for any product or service in existence. But that doesn't mean that everything is a rip-off!

It drives me crazy that an add-on that's available at day #1 is somehow assumed to be of less material worth than one released several months on from launch. As if somehow you are paying for the developers time, and if the work was done in tandem with the primary/parent offering there's an absolute case that it should have been folded in. Its nonsensical.

You're getting far less for $60 now. If you want the same amount of content today, then you need to pay more.

 

[Astery]

it's very fair to pick and choose the poison..if publishers don't rob the advantage and continue the shitty practices. Remember the notion of going digital and cutting out the middlemen so we can get cheaper games? lol no. The publishers just rack in extra profits instead of slashing off the differences. And adding as much micro transactions as they can get a pass on to where we are at now, only to get worse if there's no legal power to stop it, or all players actually vote w their wallets.

So I refuse to choose until I see the publishers actually play fair.

 

[Zaru]

I'll go with more expensive base games because I rarely buy games at full price anyway so all the other early buyer suckers can subsidize my hobby

 

[Espada]

Most of my favorite games this year are either 2D indie games or titles like Nier and Nioh (two games that were mocked for their dated graphics and poor enemy variety). I would rather games shrink in budget, scale, graphics, etc... to the level of these two if it meant more developers could be experimental with their titles.

 

[Glass Rebel]

I pay full price for most of my 3DS games so I'll definitely take worse graphics over a higher base price or exploitative microtransactions.

But I'll also take F2P games with microtransactions so...

 

[GenericUser]

I take 80€ games AND less polish as long as we again get real games made from devs and not by the marketing team. Games like tew2 almost feel "overpolished" as they just threw game mechanics from other successful games together, add a new coat of paint and call it a day.

Raise the game prices and reduce polish. Without the AAA industry taking some risk, I get the feeling that modern AAA games sooner or later just mold into one super genre. Third person, open world, story driven, action rpg. I want more diversity.

 

[oti]

I don't see a reason to pick anything, OP. There are those giant games like Destiny and Uncharted, there are really small experimental indie games and there is a growing number of really well-polished indie games that fill the AA space quite nicely.

I'm fine with picking and choosing the games that fit my schedule and budget. There are enough companies doing video games with all sorts of business models. No need to dismiss any of them outright.

 

[Cerium]

I think this is a good example of some of the problems - most indie games could only dream at having graphics as good as Battle Chasers and yet it's being held up as the cheap, "good enough" option. Even in the indie scene, the arms race is real.

I'm pretty sure that Golf Story will outsell Battle Chasers, probably even if you combined all platforms.

 

[Mohasus]

None.

Ratchet & Clank launched for 40 dollars, has no DLC or loot boxes and is polished as fuck.

 

[Skade]

Smaller scale please.

We don't need mulitplayer in every single game nor huge open worlds to explore.

 

[rochellepaws]

AAA Western games are largely uninspired garbage with only same very rare exceptions like Rockstar and Blizzard so I honestly couldn't care what most of them do as I don't want to play their games.
But if it was to spread to the high quality games developers then I'd like something like the Persona model of releasing one very high quality $60 release and then cashing in on several moderate quality spinoff titles in the years that follow.

 

[Azriell]

Smaller budget games, easily. Some of my favorite games are smaller budget/scale games, such as Dark Souls and a lot of indies. On the other hand, most AAA big budget games feel soulless and uninspired, so what's the big budget bringing me that I'm supposed to be so excited about?

 

[ClosingADoor]

Smaller scale, I don't need open worlds in everything.

 

[Joelstinton14]

I would rather pay more money for a finished complete game. I hate Dlc. Companies throw stupid parties and expensive events to sell half assed games. We need to stop that shit. And for those who think we need Dlc to keep a game relevant.... well if a game can't make it a year on its own merits it should learn for next time

Not all Dlc is bad. If games kept it simple, and delivered Mario Kart 8 type DLC there wouldn't be an issue. I think it is natural to actually want more content in a game if you are enjoying it a lot.

 

[Usobuko]

$100 AAA production Japanese mechanics game

 

[KarneeKarnay]

I think if you need a million users guaranteed to make a profit, you should stop.

Smaller budget, scale whatever. The AAA market is at breaking point. People are spending less and very few games are big block busters anymore.

 

[BassForever]

Worse graphics/polish/smaller scale

So many AAA games push the envelope but then run at sub 30fps and are so big nothing feels polished that I've wanted a smaller scale for awhile.

 

[thepenguin55]

A all day every day. C is not what I want from AAA (I get that from indie). B is what is happening now and I hate it.

 

[Ossom]

I see threads and comments with this sentiment all the time, but I don't believe I have ever seen anyone set out numbers for a game detailing it's development costs, marketing, and profit margin, etc.

I'm not saying costs haven't risen, but I have never seen a specific example showing by how much. It would help to have some understanding from the publishers end as to why they keep splitting games and adding in micro transactions.

To answer the question, I would be happy if most games were sub 10 hours. I don't have time to put 60 hours into games for the sake of collecting things and performing busy work. Lower graphical quality is fine too. Playability over visuals.

 

[hotcyder]

Games have got to go the way of the Dinosaurs

as in turn into smaller, much more manageable Birds

So Option 3 for me please, with a bit of Option 2 for Multiplayer

edit:

Though I know for a fact that Option 3 doesn't sell in a conventional space ie. with the most mainstream (though it is pretty much the business model of the Mobile sector, which is ginormous compared to consoles)

 

[foxbeldin]

I choose Hellblade.

 

[Gxgear]

I'll just stop buying games and work on my backlog.

Seriously, 4 sealed games sits on my desk right now (Superstar Saga, Etrian Odyssey V, GT Sport, and Southpark), I'm still playing Destiny 2 and have no intention of moving onto another. I just removed the shrinkwrap of another half dozen new games. If games start to lose their value day 1 then there's no reason for me to support them at launch, they'll end up in HIB or at the bottom of a bargain bin soon enough.

 

[Ferr986]

Its weird seeing people saying "games should be smaller case, more jank, less open world". I disagree.

We don't need to take out gaming formulas, we need more variety, and that includes AAA open world (even if today the market is saturated with them, that doesn't mean we should stop doing them).

With the 3 options, A is the one that I agree the most. But it's more about price your game accordingly, put 80€ games to those big AAA games, but also 40€ for the AA games like Ratcher did , for example.

 

[Joelstinton14]

I see threads and comments with this sentiment all the time, but I don't believe I have ever seen anyone set out numbers for a game detailing it's development costs, marketing, and profit margin, etc.

I'm not saying costs haven't risen, but I have never seen a specific example showing by how much. It would help to have some understanding from the publishers end as to why they keep splitting games and adding in micro transactions.

To answer the question, I would be happy if most games were sub 10 hours. I don't have time to put 60 hours into games for the sake of collecting things and performing busy work. Lower graphical quality is fine too. Playability over visuals.

I think things are picked up by clues by what developers say , financial reports and new stories when games bomb etc etc.

It seems that for most current AAA games to break even they have to sell anywhere between 3 to 6 million.

 

[neoemonk]

$80 is the best choice here, considering how quickly prices drop. I don’t pay $60 now, because I don’t have to buy at release.

 

[Tregard]

Pick Number 3, my lord

 

[hotcyder]

Its weird seeing people saying "games should be smaller case, more jank, less open world". I disagree.

We don't need to take out gaming formulas, we need more variety, and that includes AAA open world (even if today the market is saturated with them, that doesn't mean we should stop doing them).

With the 3 options, A is the one that I agree the most. But it's more about price your game accordingly, put 80€ games to those big AAA games, but also 40€ for the AA games like Ratchet did , for example.

I'd say most of the time where you see that variety is in the smaller games space - where developers have an opportunity to take a chance on a concept that would be too risky for a large business to build a game around, or make its main mechanic.

That being said, smaller games with open worlds do exist - though it'll be at the compromise of something else. I assume though that your definition is something like BOTW or Witcher 3 - either massively systems driven like the former or massively detailed like the latter.

edit:

$80 is the best choice here, considering how quickly prices drop. I don't pay $60 now, because I don't have to buy at release.

And uh - what if prices never drop, so they can make their money back?

 

[UnluckyKate]

Game cost 100€ here.

70€ for the game, 30€ for season pass...

Sure, we have ways to get the base game cheaper through retailers but if you want the DELUXE edition on day one (why whould you want to do that...) it's 90 to 100€

That's the official day one price. Through Amazon or other retailers you can get base game down to around 55 euros at launch... Then you wait a year for the season pass to see if it's worth investing in and its cheaper so you snatch it for 15€ and VOILA your entire experience, for 70€ with benetif of day one gameplay but delayed DLC.