-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Pick Your Poison: $70-80 games, Loot Box+DLC, or Worse Graphics/Polish/Smaller Scale
- Thread starter Dusk Golem
- Start date
Hamster Plugin
Member
Could developers try to reach 60 fps if they don't use very high quality assets (OP's option 3)? I'm playing Metal Gear Solid 5 at the moment and the 60 fps makes it feel really good to play. It may not have the latest graphical bells and whistles but it doesn't need to, it looks quite good as it is.
Excellent point. During the PSX/PS2 era, that was how the industry operated and everyone from consumers to producers benefited. Between every Final Fantasy entry, there were several smaller scale games that would be released alongside like Eihander, Brave Fencer Mushashi, FFT, Vagrant Story, Chrono Cross. This model served everybody well during those eras and added greatly to the industry's diversity of genres and allowed for many new franchises to be created.
It was with the XBox360 era that companies began focusing on AAA game development and lead to the contraction of the game industry in terms of diverse lineup of genres. It seems that now most games that are greenlight by publishers has to either be: FPS, multiplayer shooter, open world or a combination of the above.
I am hopeful the Xbox's failure and the Switch's success will signal a return to a period where the industry is not solely focused on AAA and can allow for more diverse game genres to be made.
old manatee
Banned
We've already got games like Rainbow Six Siege, which was retail price + 2 season passes + loot boxes + 2 years of janky bugs and server issues. If you want to be taken advantage of coming and going and staying Ubisoft has your back.
Well loot boxes are there because enough people are OK with it. Sadly. But as long as loot boxes don't give the players a bigger advantage I'm fine with it so cosmetics and stuff is fine but sadly most games aren't like that and do indeed give players a bigger advantage.
DLC is also a bit of a grey area. If it is DLC that was originally part of the game and they withheld that to profit off it that's bad. But most DLC is just extra content which I am totally fine with. Imagine loving a game and the dev gives you an extra something to spend some time on. It's a win win situation.
I like the way it is now. 60 base game with or without loot boxes with or without an additional DLC. You don't need the loot box or DLC but if you love the game so much it's something to entertain you even more (especially DLC).
I mean the market dictates these prices. Same with loot boxes and DLC.
Look at FIFA Ultimate team. They charge you 1 buck for 1 awful pack IMO but that doesn't stop from millions buying them. If a lot of those people had voted with their wallet and stopped buying those prices would drop hard. So blame the people.
DLC is also a bit of a grey area. If it is DLC that was originally part of the game and they withheld that to profit off it that's bad. But most DLC is just extra content which I am totally fine with. Imagine loving a game and the dev gives you an extra something to spend some time on. It's a win win situation.
I like the way it is now. 60 base game with or without loot boxes with or without an additional DLC. You don't need the loot box or DLC but if you love the game so much it's something to entertain you even more (especially DLC).
I mean the market dictates these prices. Same with loot boxes and DLC.
Look at FIFA Ultimate team. They charge you 1 buck for 1 awful pack IMO but that doesn't stop from millions buying them. If a lot of those people had voted with their wallet and stopped buying those prices would drop hard. So blame the people.
I genuinely can't think of anything in Uncharted outside of the graphics that couldn't have been done on the PS2. I don't think there's anything in story driven games that need a photo-realistic presentation to make them viable - other than wow factor.
MK8 is the only DLC I have purchased. I have always looked at DLC as being optional never mandatory. I don't feel like I missed out on any of the Borderlands, FO, or ES games becasue I did not purchase any of their DLC. Again it's a choice people make and it's a practice the overwhelming majority of gamers want to support. If that were not the case then it would not be around.
none of those options are enough for publishers who want to make a large amount of money quickly, they will always expand their money making schemes.
Games cost money, but a huge amount of that is also publishers want to make excessive returns beyond simply making money,
If i was running the industry however, i'd have either the third option or DLC(no predatory loot boxes).
THe set amount of a game price would also be adjusted based on scope, and digital only would also be considered more heavily in addition to more targeted marketing as opposed to just throwing money around.
Games cost money, but a huge amount of that is also publishers want to make excessive returns beyond simply making money,
If i was running the industry however, i'd have either the third option or DLC(no predatory loot boxes).
THe set amount of a game price would also be adjusted based on scope, and digital only would also be considered more heavily in addition to more targeted marketing as opposed to just throwing money around.
huh, we already had tons of FPS games on PS2, and open world weren't as common due to console limitations, we had them on PC too.
The only thing the 360 did is allow to make bigger and more varied games (so more variety). Japanese devs suffered with the HD transition so their kind of games were less available if that was your thing, but that's on them only.
This, mostly Sony 1st party games are 60 or lower on EU-PSN.
So how about raising the price in the strongest market instead of the other bs options.
Yep.
And Activision. WWE2k18 just got released and its buttfuck broken, has a season pass and extra expensive Collector Editions.
OP lives in a bizarro world, when he thinks he can pick a poison.
I am ok with DLC when it's a decent amount of content for the price, or when it's not blatantly something left out of the final game to make an extra buck.
I'd rather have games be more expensive, if it meant that the content and polish was there, and I didn't have to buy it in a DLC afterwards.
I'd rather have games be more expensive, if it meant that the content and polish was there, and I didn't have to buy it in a DLC afterwards.
CecilRousso
Member
Smaller scale.
I've already chosen it.
I do enjoy games the size of GTAV, The Witcher III and XCOM2, and I still play my fair share of Overwatch. But overall the games I've chosen the recent years, have in 4/5 cases been games that was, or at least could have, launched at GOG.
GOG alone, with the games released there, is enough for me to continue to be interested in games. The output of EA/UBI/WB/similiar are by no means neccesary for me.
I've already chosen it.
I do enjoy games the size of GTAV, The Witcher III and XCOM2, and I still play my fair share of Overwatch. But overall the games I've chosen the recent years, have in 4/5 cases been games that was, or at least could have, launched at GOG.
GOG alone, with the games released there, is enough for me to continue to be interested in games. The output of EA/UBI/WB/similiar are by no means neccesary for me.
wow factor is important to me. If it wasn't why would I buy new hardware every generation? It does not need to be photorealistic , Uncharted isn't. Last of Us maybe is, depends on the game. It is not only the visuals, the details and textures..., Also mocap, voice acting, sound.... It is a whole package that is costly.
There are a lot of games that don't do that, lots of them. Even AAA games, like many nintendo ones, that follow a different route, It should be good that all kind of game exist, to meet all kind of tastes. I personally barely care for games that are mainly 'gameplay' based, they don't attract me besides fighters or sports games for example. So Uncharted, TLoU, Dead Space, resident Evil, God of War, Tomb Raider.... these are the kind of games that make me enjoy this world. If those disappear, i will quit gaming.
Not to make any calls of fanboyism here - but you know the 360 had an entire digital storefront for indie and small scale titles that weren't viable for physical release, right?
ArkhamFantasy
Member
I'll stick to games like RE7, Nioh, Horizon, Nier Automata, and Persona 5.
$60, no loot boxes, no micro transactions, full game without DLC, better than EA/Activision/Ubisoft games.
$60, no loot boxes, no micro transactions, full game without DLC, better than EA/Activision/Ubisoft games.
Azure Dream
Member
$80 price for games, and also more price flexibility for B-tier games. But the latter is more of a market perception issue than platform holders keeping them back.
Paid for Loot boxes and "Card Packs" need to fuck right off, though. Exploitative garbage.
Paid for Loot boxes and "Card Packs" need to fuck right off, though. Exploitative garbage.
people act as if other games, like indies, or smaller budget ones, weren't available. SOmetimes i wonder if some want gaming to be exclusive, just the kind of game they enjoy, and the rest must quit gaming.
Go_Ly_Dow
Member
It isn't a choice tho.
If we give the industry a free pass to increase prices unchallenged they'll do just that AND continue with loot/micotransaction/GAAS bullshit.
Why is that?
Simply put, it's successful and a large portion of the gaming audience is supporting it. They are not going to compromise with enthusiast gamers.
I choose supporting developers who release complete, well produced and interesting games at launch and don't take the piss out of their consumer base. They can choose the price up to $60.
If we give the industry a free pass to increase prices unchallenged they'll do just that AND continue with loot/micotransaction/GAAS bullshit.
Why is that?
Simply put, it's successful and a large portion of the gaming audience is supporting it. They are not going to compromise with enthusiast gamers.
I choose supporting developers who release complete, well produced and interesting games at launch and don't take the piss out of their consumer base. They can choose the price up to $60.
I'd take more focused or shorter games. I love an open world game as much as anybody but it's not something every game needs, just like every game didn't need a multiplayer mode 7-8 years ago. I don't doubt the cost of development has gone up, but I feel like a lot of the financial problems of modern AAA development is self-inflicted by devs or (more likely) publishers constantly trend chasing.
It seems like whenever someone mentions The Witcher 3 as an example of a huge single player only game that succeeded massively without loot boxes or chicken shit DLC, the common rebuke to that is "well not all games can be The Witcher 3". Which is fair, but not every game can be World or Warcraft, not every game can be PUBG, and not every game can be Destiny either and yet everyone always thinks they can because somebody just did it. I don't get why that doesn't compute when a single player game is a huge success.
Another thing, I feel like Western game development must be wasteful in some way that Japanese development isn't. The Dark Souls series has sold roughly 13m copies across 3 games in the series, which averages to ~4.3m per game or roughly similar numbers to Dead Space 2 which was apparently a financial failure. Yet, look at how long any of the Souls games is compared to Dead Space 2 and they are at least 2-3x as long and without a bunch of filler bullshit, and they probably didn't cost nearly what Dead Space 2 cost to make. Despite the genre differences, I'd say the quality of the games are roughly the same.
It just feels like Western AAA dev is bloated in a fundamental way and I'd wager it's mostly because of the whims of executives at the big publishers wanting to tick as many boxes as they can and appeal to everybody and thus a lot of games feel generic as fuck and only the few thrive and the other derivative games die a slow and painful death.
It seems like whenever someone mentions The Witcher 3 as an example of a huge single player only game that succeeded massively without loot boxes or chicken shit DLC, the common rebuke to that is "well not all games can be The Witcher 3". Which is fair, but not every game can be World or Warcraft, not every game can be PUBG, and not every game can be Destiny either and yet everyone always thinks they can because somebody just did it. I don't get why that doesn't compute when a single player game is a huge success.
Another thing, I feel like Western game development must be wasteful in some way that Japanese development isn't. The Dark Souls series has sold roughly 13m copies across 3 games in the series, which averages to ~4.3m per game or roughly similar numbers to Dead Space 2 which was apparently a financial failure. Yet, look at how long any of the Souls games is compared to Dead Space 2 and they are at least 2-3x as long and without a bunch of filler bullshit, and they probably didn't cost nearly what Dead Space 2 cost to make. Despite the genre differences, I'd say the quality of the games are roughly the same.
It just feels like Western AAA dev is bloated in a fundamental way and I'd wager it's mostly because of the whims of executives at the big publishers wanting to tick as many boxes as they can and appeal to everybody and thus a lot of games feel generic as fuck and only the few thrive and the other derivative games die a slow and painful death.
Stone Ocean
Member
The thing is the current AAA landscape isn't sustainable. Dev costs are not gonna stop rising, there's only so much money you can squeeze off the market with boxed titles and there's only so much room for big hit GaaS games.
Consumers have limits and if publishers keep pushing something will give.
Sakura
Member
I preordered a game for 8200 yen (70~US) which also has terrible graphics and likely tons of jank. So I guess I don't really care as long as the loot box/DLC shit isn't terrible.
That being said there are plenty of amazing games people here have mentioned that have come out this year and the last couple that are 60 bucks, don't feature loot boxes/require DLC for the full experience, AND look great. So I personally don't really buy the whole 'devs have to do this because game prices haven't risen wahhh' business. They do it because it makes them more money.
If the standard price of games was 70 or 80 dollars, do you really think there would no longer be loot boxes, or other poor DLC practices? As long as people spend money on that shit they will keep doing it.
That being said there are plenty of amazing games people here have mentioned that have come out this year and the last couple that are 60 bucks, don't feature loot boxes/require DLC for the full experience, AND look great. So I personally don't really buy the whole 'devs have to do this because game prices haven't risen wahhh' business. They do it because it makes them more money.
If the standard price of games was 70 or 80 dollars, do you really think there would no longer be loot boxes, or other poor DLC practices? As long as people spend money on that shit they will keep doing it.
Orpheum
Member
If those were really the choices, i'd go for lower quality visuals as well as a little dumbed down game experience any day.
I never really cared for small jaggies in games, most of the smaller inconsistencies aren't even visible for me in moment to moment gameplay.
Also i'd be more than happy if some of the content which is basically there for time stretching purposes was gone all together. If i look at most of the side content in let's say AssCreed games those surely would not be missed by me
I never really cared for small jaggies in games, most of the smaller inconsistencies aren't even visible for me in moment to moment gameplay.
Also i'd be more than happy if some of the content which is basically there for time stretching purposes was gone all together. If i look at most of the side content in let's say AssCreed games those surely would not be missed by me
What makes a profit excessive?
Still requires lots of artists to pull this off.
Tiu Neo
Member
Worse Graphics/Polish/Smaller Scale 90% of the time. I'd say I already do this today, most of the games I play aren't AAA games.
DLC isn't always bad, if it's more like extra content and less "cut content from the game to be sold separately". I buy a few, if they seem worth it.
Microtransactions or Loot Boxes are ok for Multiplayer games, if only cosmetic, there are ways of getting the items for free, there is some way to get the item you want after some time - be it in-game currency or something else, and it pays for the game's new content, like Overwatch. Not ideal, yeah, but I know maintaining those things costs money.
DLC isn't always bad, if it's more like extra content and less "cut content from the game to be sold separately". I buy a few, if they seem worth it.
Microtransactions or Loot Boxes are ok for Multiplayer games, if only cosmetic, there are ways of getting the items for free, there is some way to get the item you want after some time - be it in-game currency or something else, and it pays for the game's new content, like Overwatch. Not ideal, yeah, but I know maintaining those things costs money.
wesleyshark
Banned
Out of those three options... Loot boxes/dlc every time.
Gunmonkey36
Member
I'll take worse graphics/polish/scale.
Hollow Knight was made for like ~120k Australian iirc and is still my GOTY right now.
You don't need a huge budget to make a great game.
Hollow Knight was made for like ~120k Australian iirc and is still my GOTY right now.
You don't need a huge budget to make a great game.
If not that, then experienced/very talented artists that cost more than fresh-faced entry jobs and juniors.
W. L. Saga
Neo Member
Nuke the graphics.
Give me sixth-gen graphical fidelity for all I care, I just want good and complete games.
Give me sixth-gen graphical fidelity for all I care, I just want good and complete games.
Worse Graphics/Polish/Smaller Scale
Hell the graphics don't even need to be "worse", just look at Hellblade for example, that game looks AAA but was made on a smaller budget with a smaller team. I'd gladly take many games of that scale and visual fidelity over gigantic bloated open world titles that provide me no sense of gratification and take way too long to complete.
If that isn't an option I'd rather have $70-80 games. I'm sick of DLC, add-ons, and loot boxes. I just want to buy a game and be done with it, as a collector it's hard since I'm always wanting the best physical version of a title, but those usually don't release until "game of the year" or "complete" editions release far after most games come out.
Hell the graphics don't even need to be "worse", just look at Hellblade for example, that game looks AAA but was made on a smaller budget with a smaller team. I'd gladly take many games of that scale and visual fidelity over gigantic bloated open world titles that provide me no sense of gratification and take way too long to complete.
If that isn't an option I'd rather have $70-80 games. I'm sick of DLC, add-ons, and loot boxes. I just want to buy a game and be done with it, as a collector it's hard since I'm always wanting the best physical version of a title, but those usually don't release until "game of the year" or "complete" editions release far after most games come out.
I can only imagine how high would WB games prices become
They already make a "15$ = 150 R$" conversion here for most games
Maybe the president would be able to buy all lego games
Praetorpwj
Member
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'.