Support NeoGAF

[Shifty]

Reduce costs. Keep the monetization bullshit out.

 

[Lifeline]

I don't get why all of this concern about single player non-lootbox games is coming from.


This is the same year we had Horizon: Zero Dawn.


If something like that can still be made and profited from, why do we need $80 games or microtransactions?

 

[More_Badass]

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.

I play on mobile a lot, so I’m conditioned to abhor multiple currencies, timers, and loot boxes/chests. I can begrudgingly deal with them if the gameplay itself is good enough, but I hate them with a passion.

That’s kind of where I stand with the shift of freemium tactics from mobile to AAA console games. It’s bad enough in F2P games; I buy premium games on mobile to avoid those elements. It’s kind of crazy how it’s become accepted within paid $60 AAA games.

 

[Ouroboros]

I just finished Ys VIII. Subpar graphics but what a fantastic game. I don’t need extra high def wrinkles on faces to enjoy a game

 

[RPGam3r]

I'll pick $70 games and season passes/DLC. I don't mind paying more especially for the larger experiences and season passes/DLC are something this place whines about but I really enjoy. Hell I'm even on board with Bethesda's creation club stuff if that tells you where I stand.

 

[NHarmonic.]

I'll take number 3. I never asked for "Blockbuster" type games that cost millions to make (And sell millions, but still fail to recoup what they spent) to become the norm for games.

Pretty much. Photo realistic graphics are not worth it.

We were happy with ps1, ps2 and even ps3. Hope devs hit the breaks soon.

 

[Vipu]

I pick good CPU for consoles so we can progress in game tech sometime that is not just more pixels.

 

[Iva Demilcol]

Games already cost more than 60 USD and they do have loot boxes so... there’s no point to pretend that this would happen in the future, we are already there.

but the best option is smaller teams, less money and more creativity. Perhaps that would lead to a less homogeneous industry.

 

[Jer]

I'd much rather pay more if it would get me games that are polished and complete. Like a lot of people have mentioned, games in the 90s cost much more in inflation adjusted dollars, so $80-$100 games wouldn't feel like a huge issue to me. That's much better than $60 incomplete games with DLC that'll end up costing more than the upfront price difference.

 

[Mudo]

Easy choice: 70-80 bucks if that means loot boxes are completely gone along with any other bullshit mechanics that have creeped into games in recent years. I want to buy a game and that be it - sure i’ll buy a meaty expansion but all this micro transaction shit needs to go!

I think prices will rise 10 bucks in the next few years to 69.99, but unfortunately i have no confidence that this will rid us of any of the crap seeping into games. Greed wins the day. At least i have a massive backlog that would honestly take more than the rest of my life to complete. Worst case I’ll just stop buying games. I want to play Shadow of War but won’t and never will as i will NOT support full price games that include loot boxes or other shitty micro transactions. Fuck right off with that

 

[orborborb]

get rid of open worlds and massively cut down on motion capture and voice acting

 

[Crayolan]

Worse Graphics/Smaller Scale, easily.

You don't need to have high graphical fidelity in order to make a game which looks good. For example, BotW is graphically nothing special by this gen's standards, but that game looks beautiful to me. There are plenty of 10+ year old games that still look good to me.

Same thing with scale, length does not necessarily equate to quality. Not to say I don't love games which can maintain a high level of quality over 50+ hours though.

Please keep your games polished though.

 

[conpfreak]

None. $60 is more than enough to produce an current gen title with good assets. Developers need to do a better job of managing their resources rather than encouraging the publishers to fleece their audience. Drive additional revenue to your game with reasonably priced DLC that adds to the game rather than charging for things that missed launch.

 

[Dusk Golem]

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

 

[Earthbound64]

Worse Graphics/Polish/Smaller Scale

Bring back SNES graphics, I'm good.

 

[Evil Monkey DTT]

I'd rather pay more for a possible complete game then a gambling machine.

 

[almostjuliuscaesar]

easily the price raise to $70 (more likely than jump to $80). i was honestly expecting it with the jump to this current gen. games were much more expensive when they were on cartridges anyway. and if it means the death of MTs again i will be more than willing to pay. Loot boxes are crap honestly. If you want to put them in your game then make it F2P or guarantee 100% that A) the items will only ever be cosmetic & B) you won't shoehorn in constant nagging to buy them. Also devs shouldn't need to sacrifice creative vision, gamers have proven time and time again that they will pay for what they feel is quality.

 

[SmoothRunningGun]

None. The game industry doesn't have some inalienable right to exist. If this is what it takes maybe it should just fade away and take cable tv with it. I'll find other things to do with my time and money.

If i have to pick (and i don't) then loot boxes because I simply ignore them. I don't care if the game is slightly harder because I don't have the best weapon.

 

[More_Badass]

Games that do just this are failing still though. See Dishonored 2, Prey, and The Evil Within 2 for recent examples.

To be fair, Dishonored 2 is a weird stealth action immersive sim-y thing and Prey and TEW2 were barely given any marketing push. Plus, Prey looked like a typical alien shooter in trailers and never presented what it made it unique in the main trailers

 

[Haines]

Which ever one nintendo is doing is fine with me

 

[Dusk Golem]

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

 

[Conor_Fool]

Loot box + dlc. Games can do it so right, I love Rocket League's system. I have over 1,000 hours and have only ever bought a single DLC for the Dominus.

Now Gears of War 4, on the other hand, was some of the biggest video game related bullshit I've ever seen. Can't believe I dropped $60 and supported that trash

 

[snap]

the first and/or third.

 

[Audioboxer]

I'll let current AAA devs I enjoy dictate what is sustainable in the market.

If games ever go to lengths I don't enjoy I'll just buy other games. At the end of the day these are products, not charity donations. Every consumer has every right to pick and choose where they dispose of their hard earned money. No one is simply a piggy bank on tap.

I enjoy indie games and good old fashioned Euro Jank like Elex will always be around. I have a backlog too and there's nothing wrong with replying classic games. There's plenty of choice in this hobby.

 

[lifeexpectancy]

I've already chosen. Smaller $10-30 digital games. Rarely have dlc or microtransactions, self contained great experiences.

Personally loot crates andother forms of microtransactions never affected me. Halo 5's model was great IMO. The crazies that wanted that stuff supported those of us that didnt want it so that we got the dlc for free. It w9as great.

 

[NullPointer]

No one is simply a piggy bank on tap.

Might want to let the huge publishers know that.

 

[Audioboxer]

Might want to let the huge publishers know that.

Well, some people are. I should maybe have reworded that to I'm not simply a piggy bank on tap. If some of the big boys just go all in on things I don't enjoy I'll leave them to it and others can fund them. I think my real takeaway from the past weeks is accepting there is plenty of choice in this market and maybe it's me who just has to accept pubs doing what they want and refocus my own purchases elsewhere.

Of course, if From Software ever turn full bastards I'll join in the rioting

 

[_woLf]

Smaller scale.

 

[ken_matthews]

I think 70-80 dollars can be a lot for a game; it really depends on the length an replay value if it. I really do not like the idea of loot boxes as pay to win. Unfortunately, I think something like that will become the norm. I am a graphics whore, and refuse to support broken games, but don't mind smaller games. I hardly ever finish any games anymore.

 

[Lil'DigiOp]

C is the real answer


I bet the majority of the best games of all time are C class.

 

[Mazzo3]

"Worse" graphics everytime.

 

[iceblade997]

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

Same here. The more time goes by, the less convinced I am that the quest for constantly improving graphics is the right way to go, and I can't help but feel it's in part responsible for game dev costs going up, and the quantity of games being released going down. Don't get me wrong - I find myself enjoying good graphics in games, certainly, but I'd prefer having *more* games to play than fewer, really big tentpole type releases. I also start to care more about simply being able to *play* the game - not necessarily with all the bells and whistles enabled.

At the same time I feel like the swing towards open world is too prevalent, and that not everything needs or merits one, but they're being shoehorned into a whole bunch of games these days, so having games of smaller scale and scope would work well for my own tastes.

 

[Kaizer]

I'll take the $80 games, just means I'll be buying games even more slow than I do now - waiting for sales, etc.

 

[SRTtoZ]

I'd be all in for more expensive games if it kept all the paywall shit, dlcs mts etc out of the game but we've come too far so if they increased the price of games they would still be greedy and ask for more.

 

[Linkura]

1 or 3 depending on the game. Fuck #2.

 

[Megatron]

I choose loot boxes. Let the suckers pay for my games.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

Increased prices are perfectly fine by me. I just want a complete experience once I pay.

Worse graphics and/or smaller worlds are fine too. BUT—if the experience is smaller I want it to be tighter. Ie, more polish, not less. I think you could do that and still end up with smaller budgets overall. If not, charge what the game actually costs, and then respect your consumers enough to make that the real, final price.

 

[N7.Angel]

why should I pay for something I didn't ask ? the publishers/developers are the one who creates bigger and better looker, graphics this days are already insane, stop making them huger and focus on higher framerate, win/win situation.

I don't want a 80$ game with lootboxes + DLC + season passes + bonus preorder + early access 130$ edition +everything greedy compagnies try to create every months.

 

[Wink]

Reality check. There's no choice. We already got all three in many cases.
Games really cost more than 60 if you want them at launch and get the full experience ("bonus" missions behind gold editions or preorders), f2p economy and more shallow and grindy gameplay which I would put as even worse than smaller scope, less graphical fidelity.

 

[plufim]

Give me the Nintendo (mario kart 8, zelda BOTW) model: $60 plus $20 season pass, the content of which is actually known.

 

[Ahasverus]

Loot box + DLC, specially DLC, publishers have nailed down how to make good, expansion - ish DLC.

 

[Matt]

For everyone saying to reduce budgets or cut costs, what do you mean by that? Because essentially the largest cost when making games is the manpower, and I don't think we should be pushing for layoffs or lower compensation for developers.

 

[More_Badass]

For everyone saying to reduce budgets or cut costs, what do you mean by that? Because essentially the largest cost when making games is the manpower, and I don't think we should be pushing for layoffs or lower compensation for developers.

I think the argument is that focusing less on super advanced visuals or massive worlds/buckets of content would ideally have smaller budgets.

 

[Matt]

I think the argument is that focusing less on super advanced visuals or massive worlds/buckets of content would ideally have smaller budgets.

Well, yeah, but to a large extent because of a reduced staff.

 

[Karsticles]

All 3, and I'll figure out which ones I want to buy.

 

[kenta]

In a year where I've been able to play a new Uncharted game as well as Yakuza 0, I can confidently say that I would choose option C. Yakuza didn't have insane visuals -- it didn't need insane visuals -- it had an engaging story and a great cast of characters and they peppered it with a bunch of charm. That's what does it for me now. Uncharted was good too, but Yakuza managed to stand out more with less

 

[Kneefoil]

For everyone saying to reduce budgets or cut costs, what do you mean by that? Because essentially the largest cost when making games is the manpower, and I don't think we should be pushing for layoffs or lower compensation for developers.

Make more games, but smaller and faster?

But yeah, not everyone would necessarily get to keep their jobs, which is unfortunate. But from a purely consumer standpoint C would be the nicest option to me.

 

[Goodacre0081]

I'm all for $80 games but I don't trust the likes of EA/Ubi/Activision to keep loot boxes out of that new price point. you know they'll just spout the same shit again.

"we're giving players the option"

which of course means they build a game around microtransaction/loot box mechanics.

 

[phant0m]

Neither. Witcher 3 has great graphics, story, and polish with no loot boxes or microtrans.

Wolf II and SMO should be great as well.

 

[Wensih]

$70-80 games which then drop to $30 within 6 months. It's the current situation we live in. There's no reason to buy a game at full price; this market depreciation in game value probably also lead to the rise of loot boxes, but meh.