Support NeoGAF

[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

 

[Brock Reiher]

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.

 

[blackMamba1187]

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.

 

[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

 

[digitalflame]

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

.

 

[xxracerxx]

I refuse to pick.

 

[Cess007]

None.

Also, the idea that publishers will abandon Lootboxes or DLC if the games increased in price is hilarious

 

[Nights Owl]

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.

 

[Anno]

A is fine, B can be fine, C is what I would prefer.

 

[RoboPlato]

I’d pay $70-$80 for good single player experiences

I don’t want to sacrifice polish or visuals but if for next gen games devs decided to focus on framerate without improving visuals much more than the current high end to prevent assets costs from ballooning I would be totally happy with that.

 

[border]

$80 games please. Every game I’ve spent $60 on I would have been happy to spend $80. Everything else I will just wait for a sale or price drop....or rent from Redbox.

 

[chronic_archaic]

Loot Box and DLC

In SP games they amount to barely anything anyway and in MP I still really don't care if it's cosmetic. Games have changed, consumers actually like where they're going and $80 games or shittier games would tank the industry.

 

[PshycoNinja]

From most games I have played lootboxes and DLC isn't mandatory and DLC is made after the product in question.

So the second one I guess. I am not against increasing the prices either.

The last option seems like it would be a step back when I think the industry needs to keep pushing forward.

 

[Rosstimus]

$70 games. Games are far cheaper now than they were in the early days of the 360/ps3 era due to game prices not changing with the rate of inflation. I'd much rather pay a little bit more if it resulted in:

-More single-player games
-Less design decisions specifically made to milk gamers through microtransactions
-More stability in the industry so that studios aren't forced to produce mega-hit after mega-hit to stay in business.

 

[Mathieran]

Well I would just say more expensive games since I usually wait until the price drops for most anyway. I'm sure a significant amount of people would still buy them at an increased price.

I would also be fine with graphics being toned down. Maybe games would run better then.

 

[Clockwork5]

Lootboxes and DLC don't really bother me, so that one

 

[Primethius]

I'd never pay above $60 for a game and I honestly don't think I ever have (maybe a long time ago?). If the industry shifted to a higher price point, then I'd just wait for sales or jump out entirely.

So second option here.

 

[Leynos]

I have no problems with games with simpler visuals, or a smaller scale. I still have great fun with 16-bit games. The worst is definitely DLC. I want a complete game. As for loot boxes, none of the games I own use the scheme, so I have no experience with it, but it is DLC, so I am inherently against it.

 

[Johndoey]

None.

Also, the idea that publishers will abandon Lootboxes or DLC if the games increased in price is hilarious

Basically. No one is going to sacrifice additional streams of revenue unless they literally are forced to.

 

[Servbot24]

We already have tons of $60 games with no microtransactions and excellent production value. I don't have to choose and I won't give publishers the idea that I'm willing to.

 

[Gitaroo]

Just give me first party exclusives.

 

[Brock Reiher]

It's a raising practice, but many gamers are lashing out against it. I'm asking what gamers prefered method would be? This is all hypothetical.

I'd pick the $70 if I absolutely had to and wouldn't have to deal with the others, but these are all problems that shouldn't exist in the first place. It's like asking if you'd rather pay scalper prices for concert tickets or sit behind a column in the worst seats in the arena, or if you'd rather let someone rob you or beat you up when you're walking home from work.

 

[DesiacX]

Increased game price, because i am willing to wait for a sale and a games price to naturally drop.

Normally i'd say cosmetic loot boxes and worthwhile DLC, but alot of the time they aren't cosmetic or worthwhile.

 

[benzopil]

Lootboxes are fun so i guess lootboxes

 

[fastballspecial]

Anything except microtransactions.

 

[Sanke__]

Super easy

A combination of $70+ games and smaller scale games

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

Worse graphics and smaller scale, easily. The industry fucked itself by pushing the pretties for decades. Now they are suffering for teaching people to chase that dragon.

 

[Foxxsoxx]

I don't care how many lootboxes a game has, as long at they are balanced and aren't locking progression or weapons/armor behind them.

As long as they're done right, they're fine. It's when they aren't done right that is the issue.

 

[Oakinn]

Either A) because I realize games cost more than ever to make or B) because I easily ignore them.

 

[Gator86]

False dichotomy, like this always winds up being. Also, you can have additional content through DLC that isn't just scammy lootboxes or gross virtual currency like NBA 2K8.

 

[TC McQueen]

Option 3. You can easily compensate for worse graphics with better art direction and make a tighter game by boiling things down to the essentials.

 

[Sami+]

I would be fine with $80 games if it's a flat price unlike the endless hole microtransactions introduce.

 

[Bsigg12]

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.

Developers have to find ways to negate rising development costs. Microtransactions, loot boxes and the such do just that because the thought of games hitting $70-80 for the initial buy in would scare away more people than some $1-5 optional boxes.

 

[zashga]

$70-80 games are already here; they're just positioned as deluxe or gold editions with the "regular" game having less content. Loot boxes don't prevent this because all of the premium games with loot boxes also have deluxe editions at >$60. Game publishers definitely view these as "and" propositions rather than "or".

 

[Ragnar Blackmane]

It's a raising practice, but many gamers are lashing out against it. I'm asking what gamers prefered method would be? This is all hypothetical.

Won't matter unless there is a significant impact on sales, which hasn't been the case with Shadow of War so far. If the protest has no bite then corporate will simply ignore it in favour of maximum profit until it becomes the norm and no one bothers complaining anymore.

 

[Kouriozan]

Smaller scale can be good, when their method to increase the game life is by adding open world mechanics ala Ubisoft.

 

[Clockwork5]

I don't care how many lootboxes a game has, as long at they are balanced and aren't locking progression or weapons/armor behind them.

As long as they're done right, they're fine. It's when they aren't done right that is the issue.

What about the children?

 

[Kneefoil]

This could make for an interesting poll.

I'm definitely in the worse graphics and smaller scale camp. Many games today have too much bloat to my liking anyway, and while I do appreciate good looking graphics, I've never not enjoyed a game due to it not being visually impressive.

 

[PshycoNinja]

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.

Become the norm? No. But I did ask for "Blockbuster" games, personally. I love my God Wars, my Uncharteds, my Final Fantasies, my Devil May Cries. They provide me with spectacle and entertainment.

 

[Brock Reiher]

Developers have to find ways to negate rising development costs. Microtransactions, loot boxes and the such do just that because the thought of games hitting $70-80 for the initial buy in would scare away more people than some $1-5 optional boxes.

Game companies aren't hurting for money- they just want to make as much money as possible so they've added these things. When people complain, they lie and say they had to do it.

 

[Mman235]

Game Industry: "why not all three?"

 

[Szadek]

I already picked the last option by playing more indie and retro games.

 

[jasminlovesyoux]

We simply don't need these obscenely large budgets. Looks at Ninja Theorys Hellblade. Look at Digital Extremes Warframe. There are a ton of other examples but these games would be called AAA in another generation. You know what they have in common? They cut out the middle man, the publishers. Activision, Ubisoft, EA, you know, the guys who close down studios and force loot boxes into all their games this year? We're living in an era where they aren't the only way to distribute video games any more. Hell, their money towards advertising may not be needed down the road. All I'm saying is, those publishers are the biggest problem with inflated budgets, because those companies are taking a large portion of the pie.

 

[spad3]

How about we focus on actual gameplay and user experience improvements over graphics and leave costs where they're at by simply reallocating them to the aspect of games that...you know..actually matters?

#justsayin

 

[Master Thespian]

$80 a game is still too cheap when you adjust for inflation, tbh. I'm fine with DLC, though.

 

[Walter Matthau]

edit

 

[bluexy]

Immediate answer -- 3. The $10-50 price range might be where this generation's best games are being made already.

 

[Vamphuntr]

Publishers are big businesses and they will try to get as much money as they can. Games now have Season Passes on top of loot boxes. If you buy the "complete" edition of games like Shadow War you are effectively buying a 80$ games with loot crates. It won't be an either or situation. They will shove as much as they can down your throat as long as you keep paying for everything.

 

[Aztechnology]

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.

Absolutely. You can stop the train now that it's left the station. The reason it's switched to Loot Box/Micro transactions over paid DLC(They would do this too if they could, see Destiny). Is because of risk aversion, it just happened to generally be something consumers also favoured. DLC you have to sell to as many in the install base as you can, and it's a one time purchase for many. Micro is a repeated stream of income, and even if they only capture 10% of the audience, if they are repeat buyers it can compensate. Instead of risking a crappy DLC release that no one buys.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1203892
I was a bit off here when it comes to physical media (Duh as time goes on a game is going to lose value, I just think it's much faster now), but I still think this holds true.

 

[farisr]

If these were legit options (which they are not cause developers would still have lootboxes + microtransactions regardless of entry price), I'd go for smaller scale. Most games are too bloated to begin with.