Support NeoGAF

[border]

Compared to Battlefront II (2005) Battlefront 2015 only had one era. There were nineteen maps in the 2005 game, while Battlefront 2015 only launched with five (though there were smaller variants of each for game modes that had smaller player count). In addition there was no single-player campaign in the 2015 game, while one existed in 2005 game. Even taking Battlefront II out of the picture, this is still a fraction of the content found even in DICE's own Battlefield games (Battlefield 1 launched with 10 maps and a single player campaign) or other contemporary shooters (Call of Duty), and it released at the same $60 price. I don't think Jim harping on Battlefront 2015 for not having enough content doesn't invalidate his argument, because that game was barebones without the season pass content.

The apples-to-oranges content comparisons from game to game don't really help or have much logic to it, especially when you're talking about a game whose modes span from air-only combat to massive scale 20v20 to tiny scale 6v6. BF2015 had a number of maps, but only if you were willing to consider maps across all the game modes (it doesn't help that most of the small-scale modes were garbage).

"This other game has 12 maps, why does yours only have 9?" Doesn't really make sense beyond a silly numbers game, nor does judging entirely based on map counts or character counts.

Consider the alternative -- "PUBG is a huge success and it only has 1 map -- why should Battlefront bother making 2 dozen maps?

 

[bosh]

I'm glad he made this video because I'm tired of seeing this "Well, games are cheaper now than they ever have been!" No, the base game -- as Jim Sterling puts it -- "access to play the game" is $60, perhaps cheaper than it was 10 years ago with the consumer price index going up since 2007 -- but it's not the complete game or the full game. It's not even advertised as the complete game... "Legend Edition," "Goat Edition," "Gold Edition," and so on. So, if you don't want Madden's "Greatest of All Time" edition or NBA 2K's "Legend" edition, then you just get the measly "standard edition" for $20.

And this pricing model is fine. If a publisher wants to sell a $150 version of NBA 2K and there is some mark out there who's willing to buy it, then whatever, that's how economies work. But, let's not pretend that the $60 game is some major bargain these days, when you need the $150 game to get features that a $60 game had 10 years ago.

Don't own 2k but what the $150 buys you was never a thing in the older $60 version. It buys you a bunch of stuff to rank your online character up quicker. I know someone that bought the $150 to keep up with someone that bought the $60 version because they work more and can't play online as much as the $60 version . The guy that pays more actually loves that because before he would just always be to low ranked to play matches with the other friend.

Sounds crazy but they both are happy. $60 any sports game today is miles better than $60 sports games 10 years ago. For older gamers like Jim suggest when referencing past games and pricing, offline mode for $60 is fantastic.

The online model where gamers must complete to beat someone else virtually is where the model for dlc comes in and that's fair game if people really need to buy that to compete to feel better about life.

The only offline game that looks skewed is shadow of war and I don't plan on picking that up before a deep sale.

I think the points Jim raises are good around pay for the workers and bonuses but he didn't really address why games cost more and where dlc is normally implemented and that's online. Games in the past once released where done, now games are expected to be supported with patches and more content. If someone is still working on a game a year after it's released, that's a year they were not working on a separate project or fired once the original one was done. Also he didn't bring up contract workers which I hear is a big issue currently.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

it bombed because Capcom didnt pull out a compelling product and marketed it ineffectively. PUBG and Minecraft are massive successes as Jim states and both are actually uglier than Marvel infinite

What wasn't compelling specifically besides the graphics?

 

[lotufo]

I have never seen DLC starting production before finishing a game though. I get that people want to think corporations are evil and DLC is cut from the main game, but I have never seen that happen, ever. DLC is budgeted separately, produced separately.

Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite literally did this last week.

What wasn't compelling specifically besides the graphics?

No more 3v3, underwhelming cast of characters, character assets from MvC3 were clearly reused for the Capcom cast, Story mode looked ass to begin with...

 

[NastyBook]

Why did Jim go back to the old intro music?

Watching now.

It clashes terribly with the opening animation.

 

[Arulan]

If only publishers could stop escalating budgets that necessitate appealing to as large of an audience as possible, and instead focus their game design which would appeal to a core and informed audience. I suspect the costs of marketing would be significantly reduced for such a target audience. The insane production values could be axed as well.

 

[nel e nel]

This is a good point. Does this type of information exist in the wild or is this just both sides yelling at one another?

The only time I’ve seen something close to this was when Tim Schafer broke down the cost of Broken Age when people were throwing shade at how much money they raised on Kickstarter.

 

[Zafir]

Don't own 2k but what the $150 buys you was never a thing in the older $60 version. It buys you a bunch of stuff to rank your online character up quicker. I know someone that bought the $150 to keep up with someone that bought the $60 version because they work more and can't play online as much as the $60 version . The guy that pays more actually loves that because before he would just always be to low ranked to play matches with the other friend.

Sounds crazy but they both are happy. $60 any sports game today is miles better than $60 sports games 10 years ago. For older gamers like Jim suggest when referencing past games and pricing, offline mode for $60 is fantastic.

The online model where gamers must complete to beat someone else virtually is where the model for dlc comes in and that's fair game if people really need to buy that to compete to feel better about life.

Yeah but that's missing how it changes the gameplay. With NBA, the games are becoming a bigger grind each year with the intention of trying to entice more gamers to just pay so they can get a more enjoyable experience.

 

[Kintaro]

I honestly feel the exact opposite. As increasingly dubious products come out that actually probably do require me raising a more suspicious eyebrow (like Shadow of Mordor or Forza), I feel like I've become increasingly numb to voices like Jim's that are just perpetually angry about everything. It's a "boy who cried wolf" problem to me just in that it's very difficult for me to take notice to new consumer rights threats because the loudest voices are always people like Jim that seem to be able to find a brand new "this time the games industry has gone too far!!!!" thing to rant about each and every week.

I am starting to lean in this direction, but I'm glad he is around.

That said, this video had some flawed arguments that I just couldn't jive with. The biggest one being the notion that "We didn't ask for this." Given the amount of times I've seen gamers raise their voices over the smallest of things (the characters don't look as good, not enough features, not enough specs, FPS, resolution, this doesn't look at good as this game, this shouldn't cost this mouch looking like this, etc etc), we most certainly have asked for it. Hell, I remember Jim making videos defending "walking simulators" because fans didn't think they were worth the money for the game. And you think we didn't ask for this? You have argued against people who didn't feel like those games offered enough for the money.

We did ask for bigger and better.

On a personal note, a lot of this is also kind of a miss for me because I rarely buy AAA games at full price. There are so many games, the backlog is real so I just wait. $60 + season pass? By the time I get to it, both are on sale for $40-60. So, basically, the arguments are really for early adopters. Day one buyers. And as is almost the case, early adopters are the ones who deal with the bugs and the bad deals. The audience absolutely destroyed Mass Effect Andromeda for $60. Can buy it now for 12.63 on Amazon. Not so bad now.

Perhaps while continuing to point out the wrongs (especially tax evasion) in the industry, perhaps the best advice to give to your viewers is to wait. They all probably have giant backlogs anyway. =P

Side note: You mentioned VA royalties...sadly, almost everyone thought they shouldn't get those royalties. They had very little support from anywhere. =/

Edit: Didn't PUBG introduce lootboxes? Why the hell does an early access game that has sold 12 million before it's even "done" need lootboxes? Why was it used as a positive example in this video?

 

[Dark Ninja]

Is it wrong that I want a Skittles or Slim Jim achievement for WWE2K

 

[Crossing Eden]

If only publishers could stop escalating budgets that necessitate appealing to as large of an audience as possible, and instead focus their game design which would appeal to a core and informed audience. I suspect the costs of marketing would be significantly reduced for such a target audience. The insane production values could be axed as well.

You should watch more stuff from GDC, a lot of game design today regardless of size actually is hella focused regardless of whether or not they appeal to a larger audience. Horizon Zero Dawn's entire gameplay sandbox and world design is centered the fact that it's an action RPG, Breath of the Wild's mechanics and world are constantly feeding into each other, Watch Dog 2's sandbox is focused on systemic AI and hacking, Dishonored 2 is focused on being a systemic gameplay sandbox completely left up to the player with the world and story reacting in kind. Games that feel hella unfocused, random, and janky like Dark Void, Dead Space 3, Resident Evil 6, etc. are way fewer and far between, and part of that is due to less games in general being made. There's also the whole market trends thing.

 

[PrimeBeef]

Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite literally did this last week.

No more 3v3, underwhelming cast of characters, character assets from MvC3 were clearly reused for the Capcom cast, Story mode looked ass to begin with...

Usually it's made or at least started while the main game is being worked on. A lot of tume it is made from ideas that were cut or didn't fit well. I'm sure there are some devs or publishers that make devs make cuts from complete games to have ready to sell DLC too. But I would find it rare for DLC to either not be planned from the start or not even started until after the main game was complete nowadays.

 

[Leafhopper]

Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite literally did this last week.

No more 3v3, underwhelming cast of characters, character assets from MvC3 were clearly reused for the Capcom cast, Story mode looked ass to begin with...

A lack of 3v3 isn't an immediate drop in anything for me personally since I like 2v2 more however everything else you said is viable and why I didn't buy it.

 

[Infinite]

What wasn't compelling specifically besides the graphics?

Characters. Rosters in games like this are super important and the game lacked characters people wanted to see. The roster got leaked early and people were massively disappointing in it. Capcom made a pretty pathetic showing of the game at E3; all the marketing and promotion of this game hinged on the story mode which didn't look that interesting. Trailers were bad. Commercials nonexistent. Presentation as you note sucked. In summation Capcom failed to make a compelling product.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I hate loot boxes because they prey on people with gambling addiction and are the scummiest things gaming has done.

I just think that higher budgets were demand driven.

 

[diablogod]

While I haven't been following MvC: I thing, I do agree that the "consumers don't ask for high budget games" argument isn't that strong, especially when it comes to an established series. I get the underlying point - good graphics aren't a guarantee for commercial success - but I think consumers also expect games within a franchise to maintain a certain level graphical fidelity. I doubt many would be pleased if a title like Assassin's Creed or Uncharted looked visibly worse than its predecessor, whereas a new IP like PUBG doesn't have to adhere to those same standards.

Great video. Nails almost everything.

On the point of people mentioning MvC, I don't think it's really a cutting edge graphics argument, I think it's more the character model for some characters looked worse than some of their 5-10 year old games. SH4 Chun Li, RE 5 Chris, DMC 4 Dante all look better than what were in that game.

 

[Petrae]

Jim nails what I’ve been thinking about the video game industry over the last decade. The point about content being cut from games for DLC— such as costumes, stages, and cheat codes— that used to be standard is one that many people choose to gloss over.

That said, gaming consumers own at least some of the blame for the heel turn that the industry has completed. They willingly accepted almost every extra revenue stream that was thrown at them. There was rarely a stand taken against these practices, and in some cases, consumers stood and defended these practices from criticism. Consumers enable shit like this, and they likely will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. All the while, publishers will continue to push the envelope and see how much more money they can extract from its base of customers— which seems all too eager to keep throwing money at them.

 

[Visualante2]

Bravo for the closing points on graphics.

 

[StereoVsn]

Amazing video by Jim and he nails the topic. What's more hilarious are corporate apologists in this very thread.

NBA 2K18 is one prime example. I love the gameplay, even like the dumb story well enough, but how they butchered the game for MTs is insane. Progression was made a lot slower. Shooting percentages were nerfed. All cosmetics were locked behind paywalls. That's all with even more corporate sponsorship, the multiple editions and so on. Meh.

 

[Exodust]

Did Jim really just solely blame devs for increasing graphical fidelity and complexity in games as if the audience constantly demanding more had nothing to do with it? Citing minecraft and PUBG, ignoring the success of GTAV, aka one of if not literally the most detailed game that released during it's gen and also the most successful title in that studio's history.

It's also not a game people play for it's graphics.

GTA was the biggest franchise around since GTA III. III to San Andreas were never the most advanced games graphically out there. GTA has the right hook to capture a massive following. The biggest reason GTA V is as big as it is has less to do with graphics and everything to do with the online multiplayer.

 

[Ryuuga]

I've said for the longest time that games should have variable pricing. I just don't subscribe to the idea that gamers demands are driving the cost of development. The sequel argument is different. If devs slashed their budget for a long-running highly successful franchise by a third, OBVIOUSLY players would complain due to a drop in overall quality, lack of features being king among those complaints. When it comes to original IP though, who is asking them to break the bank?

 

[Sword Of Doom]

Just spent $40 on Injutice 2 for a few characters. Shit’s expensive.

 

[Snefer]

Usually it's made or at least started while the main game is being worked on. A lot of tume it is made from ideas that were cut or didn't fit well. I'm sure there are some devs or publishers that make devs make cuts from complete games to have ready to sell DLC too. But I would find it rare for DLC to either not be planned from the start or not even started until after the main game was complete nowadays.

Show me the receipts for that "usually" because I have not experienced that on any game I worked on. Planning something and starting it before game is done is completely different. Teams tend to be very focused on wrapping up the game until the very end. And cutting something on purpose, damn you gotta be a shitty dev for that

 

[Crossing Eden]

It's also not a game people play for it's graphics.

GTA was the biggest franchise around since GTA III. III to San Andreas were never the most advanced games graphically out there. GTA has the right hook to capture a massive following. The biggest reason GTA V is as big as it is has less to do with graphics and everything to do with the online multiplayer.

On a technical level the amount of unique assets in GTA is quite extraordinary for a last gen title. And it has great art direction. So yea I wouldn't say that people weren't impressed by the graphical fidelity of it. And GTAV was a huge success within the first day of release, long before they added MP. It's continued success is due to Rockstar investing in MP.

I've said for the longest time that games should have variable pricing. I just don't subscribe to the idea that gamers demands are driving the cost of development. The sequel argument is different. If devs slashed their budget for a long-running highly successful franchise by a third, OBVIOUSLY players would complain due to a drop in overall quality, lack of features being king among those complaints. When it comes to original IP though, who is asking them to break the bank?

New IPs have extra pressure to be successful and interesting due to being new IPs. In the age where tech in games is advancing at a rapid rate your IP has to stand out. Especially since people complain when a new IP doesn't have enough " new," whether that's through pure graphical fidelity and interesting art direction or a new and interesting sandbox is a case by case basis.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

This is a good point. Does this type of information exist in the wild or is this just both sides yelling at one another?

Yacht Club have a pretty good post-mortem that dissects their game's nominal cost vs what they had to actually work with. Otherwise, there was a thread discussing why game budgets get large a while back, and I remember Ravidrath mentioning Indivisible was budgeted around the $10k per person a month mark, and even then it was tight.

Edit: Found both
https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/Dav...business_Shovel_Knight_Planning_and_Sales.php
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1434436

 

[Kintaro]

It's also not a game people play for it's graphics.

GTA was the biggest franchise around since GTA III. III to San Andreas were never the most advanced games graphically out there. GTA has the right hook to capture a massive following. The biggest reason GTA V is as big as it is has less to do with graphics and everything to do with the online multiplayer.

Whoa there. GTA III was lauded for its jump to 3D, its graphics and everything that came with it. Each game built on that with more detail, more stuff, better graphics, more music, more voice actors.

Go back and look at GAF threads about GTAV before its release on last gen and this gen. If you think graphics, world building, its size and "shit to do" didn't help sell this game, you're nuts. That shit gets people in the door, the content helps people stay there and GTA rakes in the money with MTs because of lall of it.

 

[NormalFish]

Is there any actual research done about budget increases from generation to generation versus end user cost, or is it the usual forum level commentary because pundits aren't journalists and don't need to do things like fact check?

You actually show up every god damn thread.

Why do you want to say stupid shit in reaction to these videos so zealously?

 

[Tapejara]

The apples-to-oranges content comparisons from game to game don't really help or have much logic to it, especially when you're talking about a game whose modes span from air-only combat to massive scale 20v20 to tiny scale 6v6. BF2015 had a number of maps, but only if you were willing to consider maps across all the game modes (it doesn't help that most of the small-scale modes were garbage).

"This other game has 12 maps, why does yours only have 9?" Doesn't really make sense beyond a silly numbers game, nor does judging entirely based on map counts or character counts.

Consider the alternative -- "PUBG is a huge success and it only has 1 map -- why should Battlefront bother making 2 dozen maps?

I don't really think it's an apples-to-orange comparison though. When someone says Battlefront 2015 launched with little content to justify the price, they're saying that in relation to other games on the market. It's only fair to compare Battlefront 2015 to a title like Battlefield because that's the metric we have for judging what we consider to be an acceptable amount of content. A game with little content can be a fulfilling experience, but a lack of content can also turn into tedium, which was one of the big complaints of Battlefront 2015 at launch. Many people just don't see five maps for your flagship mode as good value (especially when you consider that each mode is just as limited in map count).

As for PUBG, it's a $30 early access title with future free content updates planned. It's not a full $60 release with a season pass attached.

 

[Arulan]

You should watch more stuff from GDC, a lot of game design today regardless of size actually is hella focused regardless of whether or not they appeal to a larger audience. Horizon Zero Dawn's entire gameplay sandbox and world design is centered the fact that it's an action RPG, Breath of the Wild's mechanics and world are constantly feeding into each other, Watch Dog 2's sandbox is focused on systemic AI and hacking, Dishonored 2 is focused on being a systemic gameplay sandbox completely left up to the player with the world and story reacting in kind. Games that feel hella unfocused, random, and janky like Dark Void, Dead Space 3, Resident Evil 6, etc. are way fewer and far between, and part of that is due to less games in general being made. There's also the whole market trends thing.

Perhaps I should clarify what I meant by focused. Most AAA games are very clear designed to appeal to as large of an audience as possible. They want their game's ads to appear on TV and attract these people. In my opinion this is one reason why a lot of these games are shallow and offer little more than production values. This isn't the case for all AAA games of course. Some handle this balance of audiences a lot better.

My thought was what would the economic outcome be if instead of targeting nearly everyone, they focused on a core audience while significantly reducing their development budget for production values and marketing? I also suspect team sizes could be a lot smaller.

 

[LordRaptor]

You actually show up every god damn thread.

Why do you want to say stupid shit in reaction to these videos so zealously?

Thanks for not answering the question and just ad homineming. You're a credit to his fanbase.

These are posted in general discussion as points for general discussion.
If you want a circlejerk topic in community to just go "Yeah! Nailed it! Thank god for Jim!" every week go and make one. I guarantee I will never go near it.

 

[Exodust]

On a technical level the amount of unique assets in GTA is quite extraordinary for a last gen title. And it has great art direction. So yea I wouldn't say that people weren't impressed by the graphical fidelity of it. And GTAV was a huge success within the first day of release, long before they added MP. It's continued success is due to Rockstar investing in MP.

They weren't impressed by the graphical fidelity, they were impressed with having a huge sandbox to play around in. That was the main selling for GTA III, while games that only offered graphics like Wreckless are forgotten today.

Yes, GTA V was a huge success on release based on name, branding and people knowing exactly what they were getting. Not to mention that Rockstar are pretty good developers in general. What made it the most successful game of all time was the multiplayer added in later. GTA V's graphics weren't the reason for it's success.

Whoa there. GTA III was lauded for its jump to 3D, its graphics and everything that came with it. Each game built on that with more detail, more stuff, better graphics, more music, more voice actors.

Go back and look at GAF threads about GTAV before its release on last gen and this gen. If you think graphics, world building, its size and "shit to do" didn't help sell this game, you're nuts. That shit gets people in the door, the content helps people stay there and GTA rakes in the money with MTs because of lall of it.

I said graphics, nothing of the main selling point for GTA. Which is and always has been "lots of shit to do". GTA V became even bigger with the multiplayer because of "lots more shit to do, now with your friends".

Size of the world in GTA always mattered. So did the number of activities. You can argue for the story, tone, missions, all sorts of shit, but GTA was never the most graphical advanced game in the market, which makes sense since it was always about crafting a fun open world sand box for you to play around in and giving you the right amount of tools for that. Creating that in itself is expensive, and usually means the graphics won't be the best around in any case. It makes sense as to why it's successful. What doesn't make sense is using GTA V as a scapegoat in this argument, especially since it's the biggest franchise around and it was never due to the graphics. There's much prettier open world games out there, none are as successful as GTA.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Perhaps I should clarify what I meant by focused. Most AAA games are very clear designed to appeal to as large of an audience as possible. They want their game's ads to appear on TV and attract these people. In my opinion this is one reason why a lot of these games are shallow and offer little more than production values. This isn't the case for all AAA games of course. Some handle this balance of audiences a lot better.

My thought was what would the economic outcome be if instead of targeting nearly everyone, they focused on a core audience while significantly reducing their development budget for production values and marketing? I also suspect team sizes could be a lot smaller.

They would probably lead to massive changes that would contradict what made those IPs successful in the first place. Side note:On a general level, games are more complex than they ever were last gen while also looking better. Whether it's through larger level design due to the backlash against total linearity, more options to tackle levels, and generally more detail, I can't really see how people are finding games to be shallow these days. More like accessible, like yea I can play a game the easier way, but why would I want to when I got these options?

 

[Nikana]

Yacht Club have a pretty good post-mortem that dissects their game's nominal cost vs what they had to actually work with. Otherwise, there was a thread discussing why game budgets get large a while back, and I remember Ravidrath mentioning Indivisible was budgeted around the $10k per person a month mark, and even then it was tight.

Edit: Found both
https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/Dav...business_Shovel_Knight_Planning_and_Sales.php
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1434436

Thanks for this. This is good data but we need a lot more like this for bigger and smaller games.

There just isn't enough data out there for anyone to have a clear footing on this topic, but that won't stop everyone from being an armchair developer.

 

[The Third Heat]

Eh. I'd say most games at $60 are full games based on my experience. Anytime I see a Silver or Gold edition and I glance at what is "extra" it's almost always the "season pass" and like some stupid gun or costume that you probably won't use anyway. Very rarely does a game rely on its DLC to flesh out the game. Destiny is probably the most recent example of this in my life but I was okay with paying it because I was having a lot of fun. It was worth it to me.

But honestly, making value judgements in games is hard because we all experience them differently. I hear a lot of hardcore Destiny 2 players upset at the game for not having enough content, whereas I'm completely satisfied and frankly overwhelmed with how much stuff there is to do now. So Jim saying that all Triple AAA games are basically Early Access shell models feels less like a definitive statement to me and more like he's trying to speak for a subset of gaming that consumes their games in a voracious manner. I can't think of the last game where I did EVERYTHING in it and felt ripped off. And honestly, can we really shove Breath of the Wild and Battlefront into the same category, even if both of them have Season Passes? Seems ludicrous. I spent 80 hours in the former before I bought the season pass. Felt pretty complete to me.

I dunno. I get what he's saying for some games, but I don't think it applies everywhere.

 

[NormalFish]

Thanks for not answering the question and just ad homineming. You're a credit to his fanbase.

These are posted in general discussion as points for general discussion.
If you want a circlejerk topic in community to just go "Yeah! Nailed it! Thank god for Jim!" every week go and make one. I guarantee I will never go near it.

I'm not going to respond to your objection because it's a waste of time. You come to this thread every week, spawn an argument of you vs the world, play the victim of "his fanbase" who you so earnestly just want to have a conversation with, and derail any discussion of the actual issue. It's annoying.

 

[emb]

Went in really wanting to agree -- I hate DLC, loot boxes, and the idea of those being ok -- but it feels like the argument misses the mark a little.

He says he sets out to disprove this argument that pubs are justified due to the 60 price point. Goes on to agree that costs have risen and the 60 has not. Then states that publishers are doing a bunch of scummy things to get more money past the initial price. That's kind of the point of the argument he's trying to refute though, isn't it?

His other points though, that they overdo it, that the worst comes from the big games that don't need much help, and that they could do more to lower costs are solid though. And I love the generally grumpy tone of this. Really though, publishers don't care how much we hate it, only how much they make. So the responsibility is on all the people that buy into the stuff.

 

[Lord_Balkan]

I don't really think it's an apples-to-orange comparison though. When someone says Battlefront 2015 launched with little content to justify the price, they're saying that in relation to other games on the market. It's only fair to compare Battlefront 2015 to a title like Battlefield because that's the metric we have for judging what we consider to be an acceptable amount of content. A game with little content can be a fulfilling experience, but a lack of content can also turn into tedium, which was one of the big complaints of Battlefront 2015 at launch. Many people just don't see five maps for your flagship mode as good value (especially when you consider that each mode is just as limited in map count).

As for PUBG, it's a $30 early access title with future free content updates planned. It's not a full $60 release with a season pass attached.

They were comparing BF2 (2005) to BF 2015. The question is how much money did it cost to make a BF2 map, and how much did it cost to make a map in BF 2015. If I was a gambler, I would bet it probably costs more to make 1 map in BF 2015 than it did to make all the maps in BF2.

 

[border]

Many people just don't see five maps for your flagship mode as good value (especially when you consider that each mode is just as limited in map count).

As for PUBG, it's a $30 early access title with future free content updates planned. It's not a full $60 release with a season pass attached.

If $30 is a good value for 1 map in 1 game mode, how is $60 not a good value for 5 maps in flagship mode (plus more maps in all the tertiary modes)? Why is $30 Lawbreakers tanking with a bunch of maps when PUB only has 1 map?

The point being that map counts are not really a good judge of what players value in these types of games. It ends up just being a dick waving contest when most people are happy to play a handful of maps so long as they're having a good time. Satisfying game design is so much more integral that the sheer number of maps/modes/characters you can cram into a multiplayer shooter. If Battlefield 2015 wasn't fulfilling, it's because it wasn't that great of a game......adding 5 more Walker Assault maps wouldn't have helped.

 

[Ryuuga]

New IPs have extra pressure to be successful and interesting due to being new IPs. In the age where tech in games is advancing at a rapid rate your IP has to stand out. Especially since people complain when a new IP doesn't have enough " new," whether that's through pure graphical fidelity and interesting art direction or a new and interesting sandbox is a case by case basis.

I understand it's a competitive market and that they need to stand out, but at that point isn't most of the budget going towards marketing? I suppose high-fidelity visuals are easier to market, but I still think there is nothing concrete that determines that all potential buyers are looking for the best visuals. They should just drop the pretense of $60 and sell that shit for $100 or just have an all-access subscription service. Personally, I'd rather they were more genuine at what they feel their products are valued than to put a scalpel to it and sell it to us piece-meal or alter gameplay in order to accomodate shit like lootboxes.

 

[LordRaptor]

I'm not going to respond to your objection because it's a waste of time. You come to this thread every week, spawn an argument of you vs the world, play the victim of "his fanbase" who you so earnestly just want to have a conversation with, and derail any discussion of the actual issue. It's annoying.

Then put me on ignore, because asking if there has been any reserach cited to back up this argument is pertinent to this topic, complaining that I am even in the topic is not.


e:

If $30 is a good value for 1 map in 1 game mode, how is $60 not a good value for 5 maps in flagship mode (plus more maps in all the tertiary modes)? Why is $30 Lawbreakers tanking with a bunch of maps when PUB only has 1 map?

The point being that map counts are not really a good judge of what players value in these types of games. It ends up just being a dick waving contest when most people are happy to play a handful of maps so long as they're having a good time. Satisfying game design is so much more integral that the sheer number of maps/modes/characters you can cram into a multiplayer shooter. If Battlefield 2015 wasn't fulfilling, it's because it wasn't that great of a game......adding 5 more Walker Assault maps wouldn't have helped.

Yes, you are right, quality of experience is more important than quantity of experience, but as others have noted, people do a mental "worth" valuation of things like number of maps + length of single player campaign = asking price value.

An excellently paced 8 hour single player campaign is actually better than a padded 12 hour campaign.
6 well designed and replayable multiplayer maps at launch is actually better than 12 'eh' maps.
Same with playable characters - different playstyle characters are better than palette swapped existing characters
A 10kmx10km game map full of things to do is better than a 25kmx25km thats basically travel time between content

 

[Candescence]

This argument of "high budget games were caused by publishers, not consumers!" a week after MvC Infinite bombed solely because the graphics were trash...

The graphics were technically fine for a current-gen title. It was the art style and overall presentation that was an absolute garbage fire, nevermind not remotely cohesive. Capcom could've gotten away with MvC3 graphics and people would've ate it up because it would've been way better than the garbage MvC:I brought to the table.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

Thanks for this. This is good data but we need a lot more like this for bigger and smaller games.

There just isn't enough data out there for anyone to have a clear footing on this topic, but that won't stop everyone from being an armchair developer.

Aye - apologies on the real lack of range.

I imagine differing corporate structures doesn't help here. Nintendo is known to shuffle people around from one dev team to another internally, which would probably make a direct 'budget' for titles - and subsequently, what is needed in terms of sales at a given price point to be profitable - harder to calculate since they're just... paying those people anyway, not necessarily just for the one project.

 

[Tapejara]

They were comparing BF2 (2005) to BF 2015. The answer is how much money did it cost to make a BF2 map, and how much did it cost to make a map in BF 2015. If I was a gambler, I would bet it probably costs more to make 1 map in BF 2015 than it did to make all the maps in BF2.

I made that first comparison, but I was also comparing it to other modern shooters (Battlefield). The point wasn't that just it was lacking content compared to the older game, but that even in relation to other contemporary titles within the genre. It obviously costs much more to make one Battlefront map in 2015 than it would in 2005 - and I certainly wouldn't expect nineteen maps at launch these days, especially for a game at the scale of Battlefront - but you can see how it was lacking compared to even a modern Battlefield title, right?

If $30 is a good value for 1 map in 1 game mode, how is $60 not a good value for 5 maps in flagship mode (plus more maps in all the tertiary modes)? Why is $30 Lawbreakers tanking with a bunch of maps when PUB only has 1 map?

The point being that map counts are not really a good judge of what players value in these types of games. It ends up just being a dick waving contest when most people are happy to play a handful of maps so long as they're having a good time. Satisfying game design is so much more integral that the sheer number of maps/modes/characters you can cram into a multiplayer shooter.

Because one is an Early Access game that by definition isn't finished yet? I understand what you're getting at, I don't think more content = more value, but I don't think it's unreasonable to plunk down $60 for a game like Star Wars Battlefront and at least expect more than five maps (one of which was added for free a month after release) per game mode, when those game modes all use variants of the same core five maps.

 

[Rayderism]

I never had much interest in the various Youtube celebrities yammering about games, but that vid is saying the same thing I've been trying to say for a long time. It's amazes me how many people actually defend the greed of the video game industry. It's just too bad that the truth he is speaking will fall mainly of deaf ears. Meanwhile, the industry laughs all the way to the bank.

I guess the fact that I've been a gamer since gen 1 gives me a perspective that younger gamers have no clue about. I remember how it was, and see how it is now......now is NOT better. But what am I supposed to do, speak with my wallet? Yeah, gaming is too mainstream for that to work most of the time these days. Am I supposed to quit gaming? Yeah, right. So what can I do besides whine about it on a forum somewhere?

Rock and a hard place, catch 22. The industry is taking advantage of us and our hobby....our obsession, and it's only going to get worse.

So like I said, I usually have no interest Youtube gaming celebs, but I have to applaud this particular video for mirroring my perspective on the matter.

 

[Nikana]

Aye - apologies on the real lack of range.

I imagine differing corporate structures doesn't help here. Nintendo is known to shuffle people around from one dev team to another internally, which would probably make a direct 'budget' for titles - and subsequently, what is needed in terms of sales at a given price point to be profitable - harder to calculate since they're just... paying those people anyway, not necessarily just for the one project.

Edit: i apparently can't read correctly and misinterpreted the comment. Disregard my moment of stupidity 😂

 

[nel e nel]

I'm not going to respond to your objection because it's a waste of time. You come to this thread every week, spawn an argument of you vs the world, play the victim of "his fanbase" who you so earnestly just want to have a conversation with, and derail any discussion of the actual issue. It's annoying.

LordRaptors question still stands though, there was nothing substantive in Jim's video that was based on actual costs of developing and publishing games. He just looks at prices on Steam, and uses the same tired examples of season pass and DLC models for a handful of games. I'd be happy to entertain a myth of the $60 game argument if it actually offered a cost/profit breakdown and how that directly related to retail prices, but I've yet to see anyone do this outside of Tim Schafer, and that was some cocktail napkin math on twitter.

Edit: thanks for the links JohnnyD, I'll check them out.

Here is the Tim Schafer thread on twitter:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Ratmask/status/509645858066169856

 

[Wamb0wneD]

Publishers responding to market trends and more importantly demands.

It seems that most really popular games don't fit that demand though.

 

[mas8705]

Honestly, this only drives home the idea that if developers are really wanting to charge $60 for games when they also pull this kind of stunt, then it does feel as though that they want us to wait until the price of the game drops to a point where after the game and the "extra DLC" that the game will come up to just $60 in the end.

If anything else, it is helping to make my holiday shopping a bit easier since for games like Shadows of War and Battlefront 2, it feels like I'm being told to "Hold off" on getting a game at launch and just wait until a few months from now when it drops to $40 or $50 since by that time, the base game's value will reflect what the actual cost of the game is.

 

[Crossing Eden]

I understand it's a competitive market and that they need to stand out, but at that point isn't most of the budget going towards marketing?

No, new IPs like all games go through a metric fuckton of ideas before finally becoming focused even years after the core concept has been established. Except they don't have the benefit of already having a point of reference in the form of a previous game.

I suppose high-fidelity visuals are easier to market, but I still think there is nothing concrete that determines that all potential buyers are looking for the best visuals. They should just drop the pretense of $60 and sell that shit for $100 or just have a subscription service where you have access to whatever comes out.

Gamers barely react well to a game not having a high enough AF setting in their ports let alone how they'd react to $100 price tag. That also would go against the GaaS model since $100 implies that all the expansion content will already be finished by release. When that's not really the case in the majority of cases. Also take care to remember that it's not just the high fidelity, it's the game complexity as well. Horizon Zero Dawn is a much more complex title than any of the killzone games. Destiny is more complex than Halo. Watch Dogs was more systemic than Far Cry and AC at the time. Days Gone is a much more complex game than an Uncharted or resistance game. etc. etc., in fact, the major example of a game that focused first and foremost on graphical fidelity and presentation and nothing else was lambasted by the community and critics. The Order 1886.

Personally I'd rather they were more genuine at what they feel their products are valued than to put a scalpel to it and sell it to us piece-meal or alter gameplay in order to accomodate shit like lootboxes.

Again like I said, the examples where this happens are few and far between compared to the shit ton of examples where it doesn't. If games were being chopped up as often people like Jim said they are, then this industry likely would've crashed again due to major consumer backlash before this gen even started let alone this many years into it.

 

[thumb]

LordRaptors question still stands though, there was nothing substantive in Jim's video that was based on actual costs of developing and publishing games. He just looks at prices on Steam, and uses the same tired examples of season pass and DLC models for a handful of games. I'd be happy to entertain a myth of the $60 game argument if it actually offered a cost/profit breakdown and how that directly related to retail prices, but I've yet to see anyone do this outside of Tim Schafer, and that was some cocktail napkin math on twitter.

But the video is meant to respond to a common argument: the price of games has stayed the same while costs have risen. His evidence is clear: publishers are now selling very high priced versions of their games which changes the on-average selling price. Hence, AAA games are not simply "$60" anymore.

It's fine to try to make a follow-up argument and say "but even still that's not enough!", but that's a different argument than the one he was responding to.