Don't think anyone is ready to go back to $70 games. That ended with the N64. I'm not going to spend $70 for a game anymore so if all that's true it's either wait for price drops or play on the Wii U.
Well you + the rest of us that's like 5-6 people that have got those same exact style of PM's Weirdness in the Neogaf sandbox.
EA announcing really does clear up that little issue of them not showing up at the PS4 party.
I'll be banned for posting the PMs, but he mentioned to not only I, but Proelite, that the next Xbox was 2-4X more powerful than PS4. Beautiful fan fiction.
publishers will price games at $70 if they feel they can get away with it. i felt it was too big of a psychological barrier when $59.99 was made standard, but gamers were quick to make it normal.
nintendo and sony have tried their best at making $39.99 a standard price for handheld game for over a decade now, and it never really stuck, but it's not like that deterred them any.
Danish? I knew there was something I liked about you.
I'm half Rasmussen.
It's so obvious now that next gen development will be very expensive.
Not good for the industry.
That explains your great sense of humor, deep insight, and well-articulated posting!
Btw, Rasmussen is like the Danish version of Smith or Johnson. You may have a high possibility of claiming to be a lost relative of someone if you ever decide to stop by.
It's so obvious now that next gen development will be very expensive.
Not good for the industry.
It's so obvious now that next gen development will be very expensive.
Not good for the industry.
My thoughts exactly. I would be okay with the higher price if I could get rid of all the DLC/microtransaction garbage.Theoretically I'd be alright with $70 games if it meant less games getting hamstrung by DLC, but I somehow doubt that.
Ugh.I edited one thing in the OP while listening to this now that I'm at home:
*Over $25 Million revenue in micro-transactions alone last quarter. [Note: This is just The Simpsons iOS alone, not total microtranasction revenue.]
Isn't this what GAF wanted? I mean you all were throwing a party over "8 GB DDR5 RAM!.
Did anyone really think making games that made use of a massively more powerful system wouldn't also have higher development costs, and given the margins publishers have on current gen games that they couldn't possibly eat those higher costs but must pass on to the consumer?
But EA also said that stuff that used to take months now can be done in a few days. Should that cut down development cost or am I missing something?
I edited one thing in the OP while listening to this now that I'm at home:
*Over $25 Million revenue in micro-transactions alone last quarter. [Note: This is just The Simpsons iOS alone, not total microtranasction revenue.]
I edited one thing in the OP while listening to this now that I'm at home:
*Over $25 Million revenue in micro-transactions alone last quarter. [Note: This is just The Simpsons iOS alone, not total microtranasction revenue.]
Incomplete $70 games with content removed and resold as DLC, toting in-game pay2win slot machine microtransactions.
Every game is now Mass Effect 3.
The future looks bright indeed.
I guess $70 games are really happening....back to the catridge days.
ah thanks. Can you go into a little more detail on what part of the development cost would go up if you can?Some stuff, sure they might be able to do it faster. But that does not apply to every aspect of game development. The overall cost is going to go up.
remember when 2K sports game used to be release at $20? Don't think we will ever see that game. Sports game should be more than $40$70? Really, EA? Remember when your games were $20-$30 at the end of last gen.?
ah thanks. Can you go into a little more detail on what part of the development cost would go up if you can?
remember when 2K sports game used to be release at $20? Don't think we will ever see that game. Sports game should be more than $40
Just register there, make sure your company is Filhos Daputa SLB
I remember paying 70 bucks for a few SNES games that were more Megs (FFVI comes to mind). No way I'm paying that for a disc, 60 bucks is already pushing it.
70$ and keep the used market open or 60$ and shut it down?
What say you GAF?
If next gen games really cost $70 then I will wait 4 or 5 years before I buy the NextBox / PS4.
I'll just stick with my 360. I have over 100 games I have yet to play for it. I'm in no rush to buy a next gen console if they're going to rape us with no used games and always online.
70$ and keep the used market open or 60$ and shut it down?
What say you GAF?
I post my thinking in other thread and i think that's what thuway mean(seems peoples missed one of his reply?):To me sounds like Microsft will throw some bs videos pretending it's running on their machine (at E3?) and then, they will show some noticeably downgrades between E3 and their launch release. That's how i'm reading that.
I think his talking about from this alpha kit.So Durango's devkits are more powerful than the final specs of the system and games will see a downgrade at launch? in other words Durango will be weaker than what the rumors suggest since those specs were based on devkits.
Microsoft devkits have ALWAYS been more powerful than PS4 devkits. Initial MS devkits were shipping with 7970's. Emulating DME's, ES RAM, etc. I am excited.