Support NeoGAF

[Unicorn]

I can't remember the last AAA game I enjoyed. BOTW was good, but that had a season pass I did not partake in and the "story" was weak.


These days I only play what would be indie or "budget" games anyway and enjoy my time much more as they are often more focused and system driven.

Plenty of money to be made without needing to strive for Hollywood level presentation or "prestige"

AAA has become a tag that sends a specific message to me that it will be more trouble than its worth. $60+, 60+gb downloads, huge tutorials, muddling of play with extraneous purchases while ethical concerns of piece meal content, shady practices, and even immoral treatment of devs.

AAA no longer means quality experience in my eyes.

 

[HAdoubleRY]

I would very gladly pay $70 for a game with no lootboxes and no/free DLC. Would probably be willing to go up to like $85 or so. Imagine the glory of being back in the old days when all of a game came out at the same time. I'm tearing up just thinking about it :'-)

 

[DerpHause]

Worse Graphics/Polish/Smaller Scale for most games with occasional big releases at higher price points.

But GaaS offers more revenue at current budgets than either of those so we likely won't see that approach from the Activisions and EAs of the world.

 

[OmegaX06]

Stop wasting so much money on marketing

I was going to say this myself. Most of the time these AAA publishers spend more on marketing/ads then the game itself. If the game is good people will play it!

 

[Vipu]

I can't remember the last AAA game I enjoyed. BOTW was good, but that had a season pass I did not partake in and the "story" was weak.


These days I only play what would be indie or "budget" games anyway and enjoy my time much more as they are often more focused and system driven.

Plenty of money to be made without needing to strive for Hollywood level presentation or "prestige"

AAA has become a tag that sends a specific message to me that it will be more trouble than its worth. $60+, 60+gb downloads, huge tutorials, muddling of play with extraneous purchases while ethical concerns of piece meal content, shady practices, and even immoral treatment of devs.

AAA no longer means quality experience in my eyes.

This.
AAA to me is "dodge this" 99% of time.

 

[DeathbyCheerios]

I was going to say this myself. Most of the time these AAA publishers spend more on marketing/ads then the game itself. If the game is good people will play it!

Casual gamers won't and I feel like thats the target market now.

 

[GabeTheGrouch76]

As others have said, none of those options are mutually exclusive and doesn't take into account various factors. People who live in certain countries (outside the US) already have a base price set for games that are higher than $60. Games also already cost $70+ dollars if we count special edition games. And those games have and can be made on tighter resources and/or include lootboxes/DLC. There are also a decent amount AAA games that have none of those options and have done well. In light of the above, I'd pick neither option and support publishers/developers who do likewise.

With that said, I guess I'd be preferential to the third options on the table. I do like games to have technical polish, but I'm not looking for high-end graphics or games with massive scales. I'd maybe allow games to be at a higher cost, as long as I still get the base game and they don't delve into lootboxes/microtransactions/DLC.

With all that said, I haven't really gotten much games in recent years, and the ones I have gotten are Nintendo games or indie titles. So in regards to Western AAA games, this viewpoint may not mean much.

 

[Regiruler]

3. As a bonus more games could run on Switch.

 

[comshoplesce]

nothing from this:

wait for sales is my moto, i have many games to play

 

[NullPointer]

I don't see any evidence for inelasticity of demand that would justify an arbitrary price increase so I vote option 3. I would prefer a well plotted, well written game to another flashy dumbed down 'experience'.

 

[dead souls]

never pay more than $20 for a computer game.

I'll take $70-80 games because no way in hell am I paying full price anyway.

Yep. $25 or less is all I'll pay for a game generally, though Nintendo occasionally makes me go a little bit above that.

 

[Kamina]

As others have said, i will just save my money to the devs/publishers that resort to neither. Or i buy the A) option games once the prices drop some months later.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

Casual gamers won't and I feel like thats the target market now.

"now"

lol

 

[Jakoo]

For me, it's a combination of 1 and 3.

There are tons of games this gen I have squeezed way more then a $60 value out of that publishers could have justified pricing above the market standard. With games like Breath of the Wild or The Witcher 3, if the content is ambitious enough and delivers on that ambition, then by all means raise the prices. I wouldn't mind seeing a greater usage of a value spectrum with regards to pricing even if it occasionally means higher prices for prestige, content heavy titles.

By that same token, I am appreciative when smaller, quirkier titles are a bit cheaper. When Dragon Quest Builders game out, it was priced at $40 bucks and thanks to that slight discount I got it at launch. It quickly became one of my favorite games of the year.

As for loot boxes--I almost feel like there are way too many games on the market for me to bother with a game that includes loot boxes whatsoever, so I don't think I have played a single game this gen that includes them. I don't mind cosmetic DLC though for a game I am very engaged with (e.g, Titanfall 2), but I find myself just completely devoid of interest for a game that tries to shoehorn them in.

 

[jackal27]

I'll take smaller games with the occasional $70-$80 one please. Anything except for loot boxes and microtransactions. Ask for money up front and deliver a product deserving of it.

 

[MisterHero]

Worse graphics + smaller scale

I've been calling for this for a long time. I'm also wrong at least partially because Nintendo has proven that smaller scale doesn't have to be ugly.

 

[Philtastic]

What is the most expensive part of development? My guess is that its the copious amount of time spent on the graphics and animations. I'd take a hit to graphics so that budgets can come back down. Consider that games with huge scopes have come out every generation (eg. the Ultima series, the Elder Scrolls series, the Final Fantasy series). Scale is not the problem but how they go about filling up the world. Frankly, I'd be quite satisfied if more games had the interactivity, attention to detail, and vastly open world that Ultima VII had even if the graphics were just as simple. I think that Divinity: Original Sin II is a good example of creating a compelling, good looking, and highly interactive game while on a more limited budget.

I think that one reason that companies focus so much on graphics is that it's difficult to come up with fresh new gameplay and even harder to implement. It's easier to throw money at an artist to make more detailed models, textures, and animations than to encourage your design team to come up with the next big gameplay idea.

 

[brickarts295]

With this in mind, how did Naughty Dog get away with charging $40 for Lost Legacy? I don't think there's any microtransactions in that game either.

1. It has U4's MP with a few LL goodies (skins), so basically you got an actual full packaged Uncharted game for the price.
2. Game already had some money flowing towards it thanks to early season pass owners.
3. U4 MP does have MTs and Lootboxes [kinda] (which is surprising that it doesn't get mentioned a lot since it has both cosmetics, guns and skills).
4. Reused assets from U4, not too much work needed.
5. Profit

Honestly, Ill take the lootboxes, I'm more a single player guy and even then I've never been persuaded to buy MTs, single items/timesavers DLCs or lootboxes. If it affects the game a lot, then I'll stop playing a move along.

 

[Snakeyes]

Option 3, easily.

 

[7DollarHagane]

I don't mind smaller scale and worse graphics.

Marvel infinite is a good example but I thought the graphics weren't that horrible.

 

[Transistor]

Smaller scale and worse graphics. Not even a contest. Worse graphics and smaller scale would probably mean more 60fps games too

 

[Mooreberg]

Considering how many games drop quickly from $59.99, how many are going to hold their value at $80? It seems like something that would needed to have occur before F2P games became popular. I would take that over loot boxes, since I don't play games with loot boxes. But I am not sure how many games it would help. How much more would the sales be down on Destiny 2 or The Evil Within 2 at that price?

 

[RowdyReverb]

I’d rather have loot boxes and spend an extra $10-20 on them if I really like the game than increase the MSRP to $70-80

 

[MoonFrog]

I don't play games in Polish (or know the language) so worse Polish affects me personally the least. But I want Polish people to be able to play in their native language too.

 

[ZugZug123]

They could try to be more professional and manage budget and do planning and project scope better...

And don't bring the "But this is ART! Art takes time!" excuse. I backed games and movies on Kickstarter and movies seem to have way better time and scope management than games. I get it that making a movie is supposed to be easier, but even the pitches were more professional (unless it was a first time team) in showing they had a better idea of what the end product would be and how to get there.

I just have this feeling the gaming industry is still a bit unprofessional on the planning phase, while using art as an excuse for some of the clusterfuck they get into and then "resolving" the issue by forcing extended crunch while shaming people into doing it for the "love" of it. BS! If overtime was mandated I bet they would plan their games better!

 

[MoonFrog]

Generally though, I value scope, gameplay, "completeness" over blistering production values. I'd rather have lower budgeted games with strong fundamentals that appealed to me. I also think such a model allows for more creative freedom and less convergence.

 

[Sapientas]

Definitely C, no doubt about it. These days I'm more into smaller scale games, to the point that I'd have no problem if single player experiences were limited to them.

B wouldn't be too bad if loot boxes didn't keep encroaching on gameplay related power ups and shit.

 

[Exodust]

If we're being completely honest $70-80 as a price point won't stop season passes and other DLC or even =>$100 silver and gold editions from happening. So I often wonder why people fall back on it as an alternative to what's already happening.