Support NeoGAF

[JonnyDBrit]

Im really not sure what your point is here. I didn't apologize for anything. All i said was there isn't enough data on this topic because there isn't.

...I was apologising for not being able to provide more?

 

[Raven117]

I mean...

So long as the "shell" the base content is coherent that doesn't feel like the ripped anything out, then IMO its fine. Its one thing to have "additional content" its another to "pay to see the rest of the game."

While this point is difficult to actually pinpoint exactly where this line is, I think its an important line.

Destiny 2 with its base game IMO gives a full experience. A 10-12 hour campaign, Another 10-12 hours to pull your character to "Raid Ready" and then the raid. This is all in about a 40 hour experience. And nothing felt "ripped" out. Want more? Buy more. Don't want more, then you have a nice chunk of game and can move on.

Shadow of War with actual enemy types and other various features and entities, does feel like they ripped it out of the game.

 

[AmayaPapaya]

I didnt even know the $60 thing was even a discussion. I have avoided every single player game with microtrasactions, so far. I dont mind them in multiplayer games, because I get free DLC, (at least w Overwatch and Mass Effect), but I've never felt compelled with Single Player. Ive just been playing Nindies, as of late. AAA games just cant compete with Stardew Valley. I get a ton of content, for 15 dollars...and free updates. People are missing out if they are sticking to AAA games only.

 

[Nikana]

...I was apologising for not being able to provide more?

My mistake. I read the first line as you talking from my perspective as in I'm being an apologist.

 

[LordRaptor]

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 changed 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 tom

But at the end of last generation these games were selling for $60 + season pass + non season pass DLC.
We're 3+ years into this generation, and these games are more expensive to make than they were on the PS360, and fewer of these games are even being made, meaning each game that gets released has to pull double duty on earnings even if costs didn't go up for the PS4/X1 generation (which they did).

Like, if you're going to say "Games don't cost so much to make they need to add all these extra revenue streams to make up for it" some sort of evidence as to what games actually do cost to make would seem necessary.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

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

Let's also not forget Mass Effect Andromeda's animations not being good enough, but hey did you know if you make your game look like minecraft or PUBG it'll still sell well. As they represent the ENTIRE context of the gaming industry dontcha know?

This isn't really a fair assessment. A lot of people viewed those games as a step backwards compared to past entries. Why would anyone buy those in that case?

Also I've not really followed the MvC debacle but I seem to remember that a lot of complaints had to do with the roster as well. As for Andromeda, the animations were the least of its problems, writting and level design were also pretty important negative points.

Those are obvious game which had a more troubled development cycle than usual.

 

[nel e nel]

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.

Ok, but he doesn't even address the question of how much it costs to make a game, that's my - and LordRaptors - whole point. Where is that information?

How can one make a genuine argument that the retail price of games is too much or too little if we don't have the most crucial piece of information: how much they cost to make?

 

[Despera]

Personally I think SW Battlefront 2 is a good way of approaching it, since the base game already seems full of content, and I love that I do not need to buy a season pass. Whereas something like this years COD seems pretty excessive by having both loot boxes and a season pass.

hahahahahaaaaa

http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=251449787

 

[JohnDoe8865]

Jim nailing it as usual with the scummy practices of what used to be a much more enjoyable hobby.

 

[21x2]

While I share Jim's distaste for nearly every single business practice emplyed by gaming publishers these days, I think his entire argumentation platform is wrong here.

The core subject is that games have so much extra crap put behind paywalls because the $60 MSRP of games haven't risen.
So Jim argues that they don't cost $60 in reality, because a lot of content that used to be in games is now being put behind paywalls.
So what's the discussion? Aren't these statements the same thing? Am I missing something?

The video feels like Jim is rather just ventilating his (perfectly justified) anger while thinking he's arguing something, when he's actually just... agreeing?

 

[Crossing Eden]

This isn't really a fair assesment. A lot of people viewed those games as a step backwards compared to past entries. Why would anyone buy those in that case?

Also I've not really followed the MvC debacle but I seem to remember that a lot of complaints had to do with the roster as well. As for Andromeda, the animations were the least of its problems, writting and level design were also pretty important negative points.

Those are obvious game which had a more troubled development cycle than usual.

It's about as fair as an assessment as using indie titles to gauge the would be success of triple A games made with much smaller budgets. (With the implication being that we'd get the same games and not way more reduced scale?)

 

[Boy Wander]

I'd never realised that royalty payments for things like voice acting etc don't work like in almost every other facet of the entertainment industry. Wonder whether that will change at some point? Good voice acting can add/detract a lot to/from a game so I'm surprised that royalties aren't a thing.

 

[Ahasverus]

Thank God for Jim Sterling.

 

[Arulan]

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?

Yes, it would contradict what made those IPs successful, which for many is the insane launch hype, events, and marketing associated with the release of a blockbuster product. As for production values, I'm very willing to give up the insane production values in AAA games for games similar to what developers are already doing outside of that space. Why don't we see AAA RPGs anything like Divinity: Original Sin 2, or the reactivity to choices in The Age of Decadence?

While more complex, I don't think the way AAA developers embraced the open-world concept had a positive effect. Some of the core principles of open-world games used to be exploration and non-linear quest design, among others with the intention of making the player feel like an active participant in the game world. These games had no quest markers and were designed in such a way for the player to reason their way through situations. If a quest asked the player to find someone in another town, he'd have to ask for directions, use signs, and possibly a map to arrive. Solving quests made you feel like a real character in this world. The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind and Gothic are fantastic (3D) examples. The modern variety is an abomination of the concept, with quest markers dictating your every step, fast-travel, and a range of accessibility features designed for the player to never have to think or become frustrated with anything. I have yet to play it, but surprisingly The Legend of Zelda: The Breath of the Wild managed embrace the open-world concepts that AAA developers haven't.

 

[Complicated]

From the title I thought the video was going to be about how 99% of games are $40 a couple/few weeks after launch.

 

[LAA]

Well yup pretty much spot on. In a publishers ideal world, I'd be paying full price for the game, season pass on top and then microtransactions on top of that. The game and season pass I don't really have a problem with
..as long as it's truly additional content but adding microtransactions into the mix ASWELL is where it gets too much. Choose microtransactions to fund additional content (which so may not be too happy with in the end anyway depending how it's implementes) or the season pass, not both.

Think the other interesting bit in this...
Advertising logos for trophy icons. My god ha ha. Is this seriously how they'll take away my enjoyment of trophies, they'll all be advertisements?

 

[thumb]

Ok, but he doesn't even address the question of how much it costs to make a game, that's my - and LordRaptors - whole point. Where is that information?

How can one make a genuine argument that the retail price of games is too much or too little if we don't have the most crucial piece of information: how much they cost to make?

He didn't say it was too much or too little, he said it was more than $60. Once you have accepted that, his argument is won for this video.

As for whether the current pricing structure is sufficient, my evidence is that big publishers are highly profitable right now. They do not appear to be hurting. In a world where budgets were simply too high, profits (and stock prices) would be low.

 

[Lord_Balkan]

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?

Right, but in that same token, it is probably also more expensive to make a Battlefront map than it was to make a modern Battlefield map because the making of a Battlefield game at this point is much more refined, pipelined and efficient than it is to make a Battlefront game (essentially something brand new) along with, I'm sure, a lot of artistic and creative overhead, direction and expectations from Disney. I'm just speculating. Making something new (which Battlefront essentially was) at that level of detail is extraordinarily expensive. That detail is probably a consequence of both consumer demand and Disney's expectations.

I guess what I'm saying is the same amount of content wont necessarily cost about the same to produce. Just for the record- I'm not defending it, I'm explaining it.

 

[MatPiscatella]

As for whether the current pricing structure is sufficient, my evidence is that big publishers are highly profitable right now. They do not appear to be hurting.

A good chunk of profitability is coming from add on content and MTX though...

 

[KingV]

I also like the spin-off argument that Blizzard needs loot boxes in their $60 game so they can give us free updates and pay server costs every month. To which I ask: "they really couldn't come up with something less predatory and inherently disgusting than the RNGeezus loot box system?"

Which is silly, anyway. Who’s been paying the server costs of Diablo 3? Who’s paying for the additional content?

They’re still supporting it, so either the costs are not that high or they see value in garnering goodwill and bringing in new players.

Loot boxes are just there to make EVEN MORE money, not to save some failing business model.

Edit: that said, companies do such a bad job with season passes that I no longer see them as an essential part of the experience for most games. Most games now I just buy the standard edition and wait. If the dlc is amazing and the season pass cheap enough I’ll get it down the road.

There are only a few season passes that I have bought and thought were worth the money. Witcher 3 being the best.

 

[Snefer]

As for whether the current pricing structure is sufficient, my evidence is that big publishers are highly profitable right now. They do not appear to be hurting. In a world where budgets were simply too high, profits (and stock prices) would be low.

You mean the ones who survived?

 

[ChouGoku]

I'll watch this later. This is usually one of my arguments beause even if he is right most people in the U.S make below the cost of living and wages have not rose with inflation. But still want to see if that has not much effect.

 

[Wadiwasi]

The thing is games are still insanely profitable at a $60 price point, even without all the other garbage. Voice actors, and the actual people who developed the darn game not getting a slice of the pie when it sells abnormally well is almost criminal.

I do not buy season passes, or games with loot boxes. Never will. If every game gets that way, then I'll be done with gaming.

Thank God for games like Divinity OS:2, Yakuza, Golf Story.

 

[thumb]

A good chunk of profitability is coming from add on content and MTX though...

And I personally have no problem with add-on content in the abstract, only with specific manifestations of it. And it is only fairly recently that the loot box thing has really taken off in the AAA space, suggesting that they are not something necessary to shore up sagging profits, just another potential route to growth.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Yes, it would contradict what made those IPs successful, which for many is the insane launch hype, events, and marketing associated with the release of a blockbuster product. As for production values, I'm very willing to give up the insane production values in AAA games for games similar to what developers are already doing outside of that space.

These aren't mutually exclusive concepts, devs are already branching out both from aesthetic and game design in triple A games whether it's putting their spin on existing concepts or attempting things that haven't been done before.

Why don't we see AAA RPGs anything like Divinity: Original Sin 2, or the reactivity to choices in The Age of Decadence?

Because people didn't buy those often enough.

While more complex, I don't think the way AAA developers embraced the open-world concept had a positive effect.

I mean..it certainly did for a lot of people considering the success of open world games this gen.

Some of the core principles of open-world games used to be exploration and non-linear quest design, among others with the intention of making the player feel like an active participant in the game world. These games had no quest markers and were designed in such a way for the player to reason their way through situations. If a quest asked the player to find someone in another town, he'd have to ask for directions, use signs, and possibly a map to arrive. Solving quests made you feel like a real character in this world. The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind and Gothic are fantastic (3D) examples. The modern variety is an abomination of the concept, with quest markers dictating your every step, fast-travel, and a range of accessibility features designed for the player to never have to think or become frustrated with anything.

Genres evolve and change overtime. And that's ok.

 

[Tapejara]

Right, but in that same token, it is probably also more expensive to make a Battlefront map than it was to make a modern Battlefield map because the making of a Battlefield game at this point is much more refined, pipelined and efficient than it is to make a Battlefront game (essentially something brand new) along with, I'm sure, a lot of artistic and creative overhead, direction and expectations from Disney. I'm just speculating. Making something new (which Battlefront essentially was) at that level of detail is extraordinarily expensive. That detail is probably a consequence of both consumer demand and Disney's expectations.

I guess what I'm saying is the same amount of content wont necessarily cost about the same to produce. Just for the record- I'm not defending it, I'm explaining it.

That's fair, I hadn't considered the difficulties in designing something new like Walker Assault vs Conquest, even when the underlying technology is quite mature. Of course, I don't think this precludes consumers from feeling like the game was lacking content at launch or that it should have launched at a lower price point, but I can certainly understand how it would affect development.

 

[MatPiscatella]

And I personally have no problem with add-on content in the abstract, only with specific manifestations of it. And it is only fairly recently that the loot box thing has really taken off in the AAA space, suggesting that they are not something necessary to shore up sagging profits, just another potential route to growth.

Well, and that consumers like them. A lot. Because the growth in this category of spend is significant.

 

[harriet the spy]

While I share Jim's distaste for nearly every single business practice emplyed by gaming publishers these days, I think his entire argumentation platform is wrong here.

The core subject is that games have so much extra crap put behind paywalls because the $60 MSRP of games haven't risen.
So Jim argues that they don't cost $60 in reality, because a lot of content that used to be in games is now being put behind paywalls.
So what's the discussion? Aren't these statements the same thing? Am I missing something?

The video feels like Jim is rather just ventilating his (perfectly justified) anger while thinking he's arguing something, when he's actually just... agreeing?

I agree - I didn’t finish the video because I didn’t find it interesting, but that I did see was logically inept . It’s completely begging the question.

 

[Nick_C]

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.

he makes it sound like you're getting some shell of a game for $60 that you need to pour more money into to get a worthwhile experience.

He's talking about things like unlockable skins, weapons, characters, etc being, by and large, a thing of the past.

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.

Think of it more like the boy crying wolf when the wolf is still a pup and a few of the children are sneaking scraps to feed it. Eventually that wolf will grow and scraps will no longer satiate its appetite.

Publishers responding to market trends and more importantly demands.

This is a chicken or egg argument. Were better graphics used to sell us a product or did "we" demand better graphics? I mean, the very first NES advertisement was a comparison of the graphics of its predecessors, the red cloth basically saying, "Wait until you see what ours looks like." The home console market was all but dead at that point.

 

[7threst]

The AAA industry took one look at mobile gaming and said "Well, if they can do it, why not us?"

There isn't any other justification except greed. And people saying otherwise are either deluding themselves if they're consumers, and trying to justify it if they work in the industry.

I probably sound like an asshole but it's a business. Businesses aren't in it it for 'the art of the videogame', they want money, as every business does.

Call it greed, but you could also call it maximizing profits, which fits a business.

 

[Wozman23]

I think there's a really good point hidden at the end of this video amidst the lootboxes / season pass / DLC outrage - the point about not asking for games' budgets to balloon out of control.

I find myself playing far and far less $60 AAA games these days. This year the only one I've bought so far was Horizon, I plan to pick up South Park, and enjoyed Uncharted: The Lost Legacy - which at $40, is kind of its own beast.

But between those games I've had a steady stream of indie titles: Snake Pass, Edith Finch, GNOG, TumbleSeed, RiME, Nex Machina, Little Nightmares, The Flame in the Flood, Pyre, Hellblade, Matterfall, Aaero, Hob, Cuphead...

None of these have featured any predatory practices, and most favor art direction over cutting edge graphics and photorealism. One of my absolute favorite experiences in the past decade was

- a minimalist rhythm platformer for five bucks that can be beat in half an hour. If you're unfamiliar, here is an actual screenshot:

Many of my favorite games from the past decade have been budget titles like Ratchet & Clank, Sly Cooper, Puppeteer, and Tearaway. Horizon was great, but I still place it third to Cuphead and Snake Pass this year, and Nex Machina is right behind it.

Don't get me wrong. I love Uncharted and Horizon because they are gorgeous as a whole, but I'm not necessarily wowed by hair physics, or skin pores, or the way Nathan's fingers move across the surface of a wall. I'm not going to discredit that it helps with immersion, but I don't know that the benefits of devoting such time to the tiniest of details outweighs the disadvantages of the extra costs or time associated with development. Development times, especially for new IPs, are reaching unsatisfactory levels.

It feels like post-PS2, with the jump to HD, we're really just in a constant state of trying to one-up ourselves, with resolution increases at the forefront. Sure, some games, like GTA - which will knowingly sell massive numbers - can try to push the bar. Rockstar and a few other developers traditionally garner the sales numbers to justify putting in the extra effort. But every other developer might need to reconsider keeping up with the Jones. Just look at how many quality studios have went under in the last decade or so.

Plenty of games still can't run at 1080p/60fps, or even a stable 30fps. The vast majority of developers can't put out a product on par with Naughty Dog. It's foolish to throw millions upon millions of dollars at ideas that may fail in a saturated market. There's a reason Ninja Theory opted to make the smaller budget, $40 Hellblade. They've put out quality games in Heavenly Sword, Enslaved, and DmC, but their commercial success has been mixed at best. They're one of my favorite studios, but they aren't Naughty Dog, and they'd be committing studio suicide if they tried to keep up.

So you really have two problems here. The bells and whistles AAA industry doesn't think it's getting enough money to keep up with rising development costs, and the B-tier (or however you want to label them) doesn't have enough money to try to keep up with bells and whistles AAA. That struggle isn't exclusive to just game development. It's prevalent in many companies, industries, and institutions.

Making the industry viable for a wide variety of products is really what we should be focused on. Not realistic armpit hair shadows and anus physics.

 

[thumb]

Well, and that consumers like them. A lot. Because the growth in this category of spend is significant.

Yeah, that's unfortunately not surprising. I understand their appeal, I just don't think they are good for game design, and I think they can be psychologically exploitative for those who lean towards gambling compulsions.

BTW, thank you for chiming in on this thread. It's nice to have an NPD analyst bring in some industry knowledge.

 

[UrbanRats]

Well hey, i can't even remember the last time i bought a game for full price, so i guess that's one way to go around this.

40+€ is for games that i REALLY look forward to, everything else has to be significantly lower.
With very few exceptions ( i bought Zelda BotW at 59€ and i still regret it.)

 

[Pilgrimzero]

My most hated example of paid DLC was the Xbox exclusive paid for “Real Ending” to Tomb Raider Underworld.

 

[IvorB]

Well there you have it. The man speaks the truth on all counts. It's really unbelievable that we should have consumers coming out of the woodwork to fight the corner of these corporations on this issue. It's just unbelievable.

However, watching this video made me appreciate that I don't buy or play any of these games that are the main culprits on this front so... whatever I guess. Mainstream gonna mainstream.

 

[nel e nel]

He didn't say it was too much or too little, he said it was more than $60. Once you have accepted that, his argument is won for this video.

As for whether the current pricing structure is sufficient, my evidence is that big publishers are highly profitable right now. They do not appear to be hurting. In a world where budgets were simply too high, profits (and stock prices) would be low.

So what is the argument? Because here you say:

But the video is meant to respond to a common argument: the price of games has stayed the same while costs have risen.

And when it's pointed out that the costs aren't even provided to support his response you change the goalpost and say that that's not what the video is about? You yourself are claiming to have evidence and don't even provide it. How profitable are publishers right now? Do you have their earnings statements?

Asking a simple question: how much do games cost to make? Is not about changing the argument, it's about digging deeper to get answers based on facts, not emotions.

 

[Petrae]

Jim nailing it as usual with the scummy practices of what used to be a much more enjoyable hobby.

Yup. As recently as Gen6, I had a much more positive mindset about the video game industry. Even with the releases of more expensive Collector’s Editions gaining momentum late in the generation, I had little to complain about. It was all about how much content could be packed into a disc at that point in time; bonus levels, extra costumes, cheats, and bonus stuff like behind-the-scenes features and other videos could be seen.

Gen7 marked the beginning of change, and Gen8 has seen the (de)evolution accelerate. Cheats are gone, replaced by microtransactions. Bonus levels and costumes? Now DLC. Expansions aren’t surprises anymore; they’re talked about as Season Passes and other DLC months in advance of a game’s launch date, so it’s fair to wonder about what is actually being offered in a game when it ships.

That’s why I’ve gone back to retro stuff with much of my free time. Non-connected games that take me back to a time when I honestly was happier with video games and when I thought that games had more to offer than asking me to spend even more money.

 

[Cess007]

Well, and that consumers like them. A lot. Because the growth in this category of spend is significant.

I can imagine the data on lootboxes providing publishers the right to think "whine all you want, we're making a lot of money on this"

 

[IvorB]

From the title I thought the video was going to be about how 99% of games are $40 a couple/few weeks after launch.

Yeah to be honest I feel like the natural price of video games is about £30. That's the price I will pick it up for on Amazon a month or two after release. A game has to be really special for me to pay the launch price.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

His point is that games are not $60, thats just the base entry price and that a full game is much more expensive than that due to stuff like gold editions and season passes at launch, so there is no reason to claim that publishers need predatory stuff like lootboxes to offset a $60 MRSP when they already found a way that is generally well recieved to successfully offset those costs.

That's the problem though. Everything about gaming from the production costs to the price of buying into everything is already massively inflated as is. Jim presents this argument as "The other ways companies tries to price gouge you is fine as is." When really it's not. Lootboxes, Season Passes, Microtransactions, deluxe editions, are all bad.

 

[Interfectum]

Well, and that consumers like them. A lot. Because the growth in this category of spend is significant.

People like gambling and buying their way ahead of others. Not sure we should celebrate this as an industry though.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

Asking a simple question: how much do games cost to make? Is not about changing the argument, it's about digging deeper to get answers based on facts, not emotions.

Jim suggests we have pricing tiers, $60 for the base game and a higher priced level for the full game as long as it's explained and does't include other monetary, aka micro-transactions.

I don't think even this would go over well. Many are set on a $60 pricepoint and having a game that is $100 for the full experience is a tough sell. That's why they market those higher price points as a bonus, not the base game as incomplete.

 

[FinalAres]

He's right, but the way the argument has been made is really weak.

Should be more focused on just loot boxes and when they are and aren't appropriate. The whole criticism of silver, gold, diamond editions section followed by "oh but they're actually fine" is super weird.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

He's right, but the way the argument has been made is really weak.

Should be more focused on just loot boxes and when they are and aren't appropriate. The whole criticism of silver, gold, diamond editions section followed by "oh but they're actually fine" is super weird.

Did Jim ever support this in the past when they were first introduced? I only recall him attacking everything that is sold as extra.

 

[Some Nobody]

He's right, but the way the argument has been made is really weak.

Should be more focused on just loot boxes and when they are and aren't appropriate. The whole criticism of silver, gold, diamond editions section followed by "oh but they're actually fine" is super weird.

It's gross the way they all kinda got in line, but he came to the conclusion that DLC isn't a bad thing. And he's right, it's not.

Substantive DLC is perfectly acceptable. You wanna sell me The Witcher 3 for $60, then ask me to pay another $30 for DLC, that's cool. The base game is a complete experience with hundreds of hours of gameplay, while the DLC has nothing to do with the complete campaign and instead creates new campaigns for someone already involved in the universe.

Comparatively, Angry Joe implied that the Destiny 2 story was left on a cliffhanger that will be finished presumably in the DLC. That's less acceptable, but its still mostly adding to the game.

MTX and lootcrates though? That's all shit that should be in the game. It's not substantive, it's all things I should get for free when I spend $30-50 extra on the game's season pass or DLC. Either that or they alter the balance of the game in a way that makes everyone's experience worse whether they pay for the crates or not...to encourage you to pay for the crates. Fuck that.

Jim's video is all over the place though, and there are some weak arguments that could've been chopped to prop up stronger ones. WD2 is a good game, don't mention it when you can bring up stuff like Battlefront 1 and even 2. And go into greater detail about things like how writers and voice actors aren't getting royalties and why that's a big deal (royalties are almost a given elsewhere in the entertainment industry). Talk about how devs aren't being paid properly so people don't think you're just picking on the developers.

Most of all, don't suggest that "we didn't ask for this" because we most certainly did. I was ready to move on from PS3 in 2012 and I'd only owned one for three years. I wanted the new hotness. I'm a little more reluctant now, as we move to 4K and I think about what a waste of time it is to develop 4K assets instead of working to make a pretty PS4 game that takes less than 4 years to develop, but that's still selfish for its own reasons lol.

Not a bad video, but he weakened what's actually a good point. Unfortunate, when the people he's talking about REALLY need a verbal dressing down.

 

[MatPiscatella]

Yeah, that's unfortunately not surprising. I understand their appeal, I just don't think they are good for game design, and I think they can be psychologically exploitative for those who lean towards gambling compulsions.

BTW, thank you for chiming in on this thread. It's nice to have an NPD analyst bring in some industry knowledge.

No problem. I'm tentatively entering though because I know emotions are... charged... on this at the moment.

I understand and empathize with a number of the concerns expressed, although I do not agree that loot boxes are "gambling". But are there ways of making loot boxes more consumer friendly or transparent? Absolutely. That's the balance that has to occur over time.

Ultimately I think the consumers have the power here. Other initiatives like "project $10" failed and ceased because consumers didn't buy them. The industry is very quick to adapt to consumer preferences. However, there have been so many instances of internet outrage over the years it's really hard to differentiate the meaningful outrage from the bluster, especially when the sales data paints a clear picture.

I think loot boxes appeal to a few specific consumer segments, but not all.

In sum, loot boxes represent a revenue generating opportunity that really has nothing to do with how much the games cost to make. As are Gold Editions, etc. Profit grows when revenues are grown and/or costs are lowered. Does MTX and add on content allow for better risk/reward ratios in order to have more confidence in funding game development? Absolutely it does. But I have never heard anyone say that loot crates exist because games are more expensive to make. Shrug.

 

[Joelstinton14]

We really need to stop the hype culture that publishers and consumers are so invested in.

The simple facts are that games initial cost to the consumer haven't risen in price, and development costs have risen, considerably. Most Triple A games need to sell between 3- 8 million just to break even (according to their own projections from end of year financial reports). Many games fail to do that or just scrape over the line. Developers would like to sell us £70-80 quid games, but we are so used to buying games at £40 they just can't change the price. I think they would like too, like tomorrow if they could, but no way would consumers have it.

But i don't think he can really ignore the debate he acknowledges at the beginning , but puts to one side. Publishers are selling us £70 games at £40 - but using elements within the development process to make that money back up - like armour, guns - costumes - elements that cost in the grand scheme of things of game development - pittance - but sold at massive mark ups.

Developers don't have to make games that look as shiny and great as they do. But the industry is locked into a willy waving contest over graphics, performance and new tech. This is driven as much by publishers at events such as E3 as it is by fans on messages boards nit picking over every pixel, frame, and visual fidelity. I think it easy to blame publishers , but we bear some responsibility. Tomorrow we will probably have a downgrade thread on a upcoming game title hovering around the first page.

 

[MrS]

Substantive DLC is perfectly acceptable. You wanna sell me The Witcher 3 for $60, then ask me to pay another $30 for DLC, that's cool. The base game is a complete experience with hundreds of hours of gameplay, while the DLC has nothing to do with the complete campaign and instead creates new campaigns for someone already involved in the universe.

Comparatively, Angry Joe implied that the Destiny 2 story was left on a cliffhanger that will be finished presumably in the DLC. That's less acceptable, but its still mostly adding to the game.

Comparing those two is quite disingenuous. Destiny 2 base game will provide hundreds of hours to people who buy it, and the final mission brought a conclusive end to the game's advertised 'Red Legion' story. It didn't end on a cliff hanger and nobody was sold 'half a campaign'. New DLC will focus on a new story in the Destiny world. It's probably not the best idea for you to take Angry Joe's word as the gospel.

 

[thumb]

So what is the argument? Because here you say:



And when it's pointed out that the costs aren't even provided to support his response you change the goalpost and say that that's not what the video is about? You yourself are claiming to have evidence and don't even provide it. How profitable are publishers right now? Do you have their earnings statements?

Asking a simple question: how much do games cost to make? Is not about changing the argument, it's about digging deeper to get answers based on facts, not emotions.

I think there are two separate arguments. The first is AAA games are $60 and have not risen in price to account for inflation and budget changes. But games really have risen in price, and it would be utterly strange if businesses were still choosing to sell their games at unsustainably low prices. Not impossible, just not what one would expect. And given a cursory look at their stock prices and earnings, they seem fine.

As for how the major publishers are doing, they all report robust earnings, growth, and profit, from want I can tell. Hell, Activision's report can't stop going on about many internal records they are breaking.

Have a look here:

Electronic Arts (this is a summary press release, but gives all the numbers).

Ubisoft

Activision/Blizzard

I would also note than an NPD analyst responded directly to my points earlier and did not disagree about robust profits and stock prices for major publishers.

 

[Kureransu]

I watched the video, and i'm kinda in the middle.

I can't blame publishes/developers for implementing something the industry supports. We're in an interesting area right now. It's more of a "right now"/"impatient" era, where if we can get something without having to work as hard, we'll do it. Look at the fitness/weight loss industry. People are willing to pay tons of money to do something they could very well do for themselves, with a little time, research and patience. That's are people are with grinding in Video games, and now they they are offered a faster way out, they take it. So why wouldn't pubs/devs. off it to them if they want it?

They part that gets me is when they alter the formula (forza 7 and 2k18), to make it where it's darn near a chore to move forward, as to entice you to just "buy out". I don't think that's a fair practice, and it makes me less interested in your game. I'm definitely a voter with my wallet, I don't NEED to buy your game if you're going to try to exploit me because i'm a fan. If you added new modes and that had a grind mechanic that was cumbersome, sure, but to change what's been standard for so many years for no other visible reason other than to get me to dig deeper in my pockets, i'm gonna take a hard pass.

When it comes to season passes, I think the biggest issue the games are support long enough to make it worth while. GTA 5 is doing well because It's been support it for so long without a new one coming out 1-2 years after that one. We're on year 4 for GTA V, with no mention of 6, and people aren't complaining either. Battlefront 2 is already coming and one hasn't even been out for 2 years yet. I think there is more money support a franchise for 3-5 years with a small team making content that is compelling for the consumer than rebooting every 1-2 years. This is why the game don't hold value as is, and i really wish this would change.

As far as graphic fidelity, I still think the PS360 era really hurt the industry from a dev standpoint. I think the cost were much too high going to HD, and they created a new norm that I feel is a bit toxic for the industry, and that is basing the relevance of a game off specs (FPS,Res,Graphics ). Don't get me wrong, we want the game we by to be playable, and graphics can be good enough to convey the message, not top of the line groundbreaking. Also Mid range development took a dive. Bigger publishers cut content by 50-75%, and sales quotas to make money or even break even skyrocketed, cause SO MANY Devs, to close up shop or just leave gaming. The indie scene is bringing back mid-range development, so that's good. Don't get me wrong, i know that the last gen went for 8 years to help recoup costs, but man the damage was already done.

I'd really like for games to shoot for a more evergreen approach, where new titles can be made with more time, with a small core team. I don't think people would car to invest so much in a game that they know will be supported for a good while.