Support NeoGAF

[Bits N Pieces]

So I just watched it and I don't wholeheartedly agree with Jim.

He says that games have season passes for sale whilst the devs don't know what's in them, then he talks about content being cut from the game to sell in a season pass. That strikes me as being a bit odd.

He also talks about season passes being a way for publishers to get more money out of gamers but doesn't address games like Halo, Titanfall or Overwatch among others who won't charge for new content but use those dreaded lootboxes. What does he think of them?

There as many moot points as there are good points in the video to me and it just screams generalisations with a sensationalist twist.

Then again Jim would probably think of me as some corporate apologist cum swallower who gulps down whatever the corporate overlords can chuck at me, so I doubt he really cares, lol.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

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

"Because that's what $60 is now, it's not the price of a game, it's the base price of a game. The shell price. The starting point - you can buy the skeletal package of the game that way but it's clear where the full experiences lie."

Shell. Starting. Skeletal. I mean really, this hyperbole to make a point. Because "$60 is not the price of a game anymore" is nonsense.

Sure, for $60 you don't get bonus skins anymore. But you do get insane production values.

Is not including extras anymore enough to make up for the fact that games are more expensive to make but still cost $60? Jim seems to be okay with games having different price tiers to offset the costs, but not okay if those same games indulge in micro-transations. But who's to say if doing just one thing, the tiers, is enough? Who knows, maybe they need both? Maybe they don't really need either, who knows? I know who doesn't know, Jim doesn't. Without any real numbers all we have are baseless ramblings of a man you kinda want to agree with because you feel like the industry is greedy and you know that companies like profits.

All I know is I look at what $60 gets you and there's more value here than ever.

 

[Nick_C]

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.

I think the argument is that the end game content advertises things to come. Destiny 2, when assessed on what the base game has to offer, is very much a feature-rich game. There is a complete story, many end game and side activities, timed events and tons of ways to customize your character in the way you see fit. That's even before we touch the PVP modes on offer.

The Red Legion story arc is essentially chapter one in the Destiny 2 book, and between the post-credit sequence and the little snippets of lore you pick up during the end game they are definitely dangling a carrot in front of their players to keep them coming back for the expansions.

 

[EdgeXL]

Am I a corporate still if the majority of the games and season passes I purchase are 50-75% off? It is actually pretty rare for me to buy a season pass but I have bought a few when the discount was big enough.

 

[Nikana]

Am I a corporate still if the majority of the games and season passes I purchase are 50-75% off? It is actually pretty rare for me to buy a season pass but I have bought a few when the discount was big enough.

The biggest shill ever.

Spoiler

/S

 

[Moon Presence]

Am I a corporate still if the majority of the games and season passes I purchase are 50-75% off? It is actually pretty rare for me to buy a season pass but I have bought a few when the discount was big enough.

I don't think so, I do that all the time as well. I never wasted money in any form of microtransactions but expansions I remember buying 4 or 5 just from the top of my head. Never spent a dime on a Season Pass without knowing for sure what I was getting.

What I truly despise is the Gold/Premium/Legendary editions that seem to be the norm nowadays. And loot boxes, of course. The AAA industry is a mess right now.

 

[Boy Wander]

Am I a corporate still if the majority of the games and season passes I purchase are 50-75% off? It is actually pretty rare for me to buy a season pass but I have bought a few when the discount was big enough.

You're whats known in the Carny business as a "mark".

 

[GuitarAtomik]

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?

Jim makes a lot of good points but ultimately, this is also where I get confused.

• The argument starts with people defending microtransactions with the fact that game prices haven't risen above $60 for about a decade now while production costs have risen.
• Jim's argument is that games actually do cost more than $60 because of the influx of microtransactions to these full priced games.

Soooo I think everyone is on the same page at that point and this is more of a semantics argument except the video goes further to rail (largely rightly so) against the practice without also acknowledging that without it, game prices likely would be higher today, or we'd be getting significantly less content.

 

[Szadek]

Am I a corporate still if the majority of the games and season passes I purchase are 50-75% off? It is actually pretty rare for me to buy a season pass but I have bought a few when the discount was big enough.

Buying a season pass once we know what the all the dlc is, is a good way of saving money if you want all of it.
WhatI I don't get is when people buy them blindly. You might not even care about the game once the DLC drops, yet alone if the dlc is any good, so what's the point?

 

[jdmonmou]

I really don't have an issue with paid DLC done well. But I've seen that companies get this wrong a lot of the time and just make it confusing to the customer by having separate tiers and DLC that you can only get by pre-ordering at certain retailers. It's really just a mess that I prefer to overlook and just buy the base game.

I agree with Jim's argument. Just because games still cost $60, developers don't have to implement microtransactions or face going out of business. They have the DLC model. At least with that model you know what you're paying for up front rather than the chance to get the item you want by paying to open a loot crate. Whether some developers cut content from the base game to sell as DLC is another discussion. Now you see developers are selling both season passes and loot crates. Disgusting.

 

[ShemhazaiX]

I don't understand the point of the video. He states that the defenders of stuff like season passes and loot boxes and stuff are defending the inclusion of said products because games price hasn't risen with inflation.

He then goes on to say "Yeah, but games have risen with inflation because of stuff like season passes and DLC."

So like, at the end of the day all he's saying is that games HAVE risen with inflation when factoring in the DLC stuff. Which isn't actually countering the arguments so much as rephrasing what people were saying.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

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?

Yeah, he kinda just agreed with that whole point. I don't understand if he thought that he was making an edgy rebuttal or if he actually was aware of that and just used that as a springboard to tirade about lootboxes again. I kinda came off with the idea that he was arguing season passes/dlc/lootboxes are entirely justifiable as long as you aren't using all of them at once.

Moreover the last point about "not asking for this" is utter garbage. PUBG and Minecraft are notable because they're the exception. And customers are asking for it anyways, without fail the latest high-budget microtransaction filled lootfests always end up being drastically popular and profitable titles. Perhaps the truly excessive cases like Shadow of War or Forza will be exceptions to this, we'll see.

 

[Audioboxer]

My man Jim has been reading the GAF lately. About to watch. I often find it difficult to disagree with what he says, but let's see on this one.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

I always thought royalties was distributed to the devs, not the writers. Didn't know this used to be different.

So what do devs get if not royalties?

 

[Iva Demilcol]

Totally agree with Jim, but I would've liked that he went a little more in depth about how these companies avoid paying taxes and how they actually invest less and less money so people realize the excuse that publishers do need more than $60 USD is just that, an excuse.

Yes, he mentioned the incredible research Super Bunnyhop did, but sadly not many people visit Super Bunnyhop's YT channel.

 

[Nick_C]

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.

I'd like to know wh you don't feel that loot boxes are gambling. Risking something (ie, money) for a chance at a desired outcome (in-game item) is the very definition of gambling.

Also, as with most things, you need only go looking for it. The implication here, based on the context of the thread that it was posted in, is that loot boxes are necessary to offset the cost of development. LordRaptor's whole argument seems to be based on this assumption that loot boxes need to be implemented for games development in order for them to remain sustainable. Here's Statham's take. While you may not have explicitly seen it being said, there are definitely people that believe this.

"Because that's what $60 is now, it's not the price of a game, it's the base price of a game. The shell price. The starting point - you can buy the skeletal package of the game that way but it's clear where the full experiences lie."

Shell. Starting. Skeletal. I mean really, this hyperbole to make a point. Because "$60 is not the price of a game anymore" is nonsense.

Sure, for $60 you don't get bonus skins anymore. But you do get insane production values.

Is not including extras anymore enough to make up for the fact that games are more expensive to make but still cost $60? Jim seems to be okay with games having different price tiers to offset the costs, but not okay if those same games indulge in micro-transations. But who's to say if doing just one thing, the tiers, is enough? Who knows, maybe they need both? Maybe they don't really need either, who knows? I know who doesn't know, Jim doesn't. Without any real numbers all we have are baseless ramblings of a man you kinda want to agree with because you feel like the industry is greedy and you know that companies like profits.

All I know is I look at what $60 gets you and there's more value here than ever.

While I very much agree with you that numbers are very important in order for this argument to really start pushing forward, it is an objective fact that games are releasing with less and less content as time goes on. Forza 7 gutted series staple mechanics and put them in loot boxes. MvC went from having 55 characters with 6+ palette swaps each to MvC:I launching with 30 characters, 4 colors each. Asura's Wrath locked its ending behind a $7 paywall. Metro: Last Light's Ranger difficulty was a preorder bonus, offered for $5 to those whom didn't preorder or waited to get the game. Deus Ex: MD's story may never wrap up, but that launched at $60.

Shell and skeletal may be hyperbolic for many games but the one being highlighted here, 2015's Battlefront, is a good example of a game that definitely didn't feel like it justified the $60 price point, along with MvC:I, Destiny 1 and a lot of other high profile "AAA" games.

 

[jdmonmou]

Moreover the last point about "not asking for this" is utter garbage. PUBG and Minecraft are notable because they're the exception. And customers are asking for it anyways, without fail the latest high-budget microtransaction filled lootfests always end up being drastically popular and profitable titles. Perhaps the truly excessive cases like Shadow of War or Forza will be exceptions to this, we'll see.

What he was saying was that customers aren't the reason why games are so expensive, the developers and publishers are to blame for that by putting in features that the customer doesn't really want. PUBG and Minecraft were sleeper hit phenomenons without a AAA budget. Also, I remember late last-gen you had some publishers like Ubisoft complaining about how long that gen lasted and saying they needed more powerful hardware. It may even be the reason why we have the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X. Well, more powerful hardware increases game development costs, so we shouldn't assume that developers need to add scummy business models like loot crates to their games or face going out of business.

 

[Clockwork5]

As usual I agree with some of what he says and disagree with some of, what is in my opinion, hyperbole.

There is no question that publishers have been increasingly greedy as time goes on, to the point where it can be difficult to avoid outside of the indie realm.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

PUBG and Minecraft were sleeper hit phenomenons without a AAA budget.

One thing I want to note is that I do think it's a little disingenuous to highlight lightning-in-a-bottle examples as though they present a formula that can be replicated.

 

[CrazyHal]

Glad that Jim made this. It fucking infuriate me when i see people making the "they have to put micro transaction to make their money back!" excuse. That has never been true. Where does that come from anyway? Is there any proof out there to back up this claim or is it just a belief that some people have?

 

[NullPointer]

One of his best episodes, and damn timely.

For this episode more than most, thank God for Jim.

 

[jdmonmou]

One thing I want to note is that I do think it's a little disingenuous to highlight lightning-in-a-bottle examples as though they present a formula that can be replicated.

I think of it along the same lines as someone in a class that breaks the curve on a midterm or final and ruins it for the rest of the class that didn't do so well. That one person that did it shows it was possible to succeed. These "lightening in a bottle" examples are like that. They are proof that commercially successful games can be made without the bloated AAA budgets that come along with them. Also, I think that these lightening in a bottle examples are becoming more common (e.g. Rocket League, PUBG, etc.).

 

[Ahasverus]

I always thought royalties was distributed to the devs, not the writers. Didn't know this used to be different.

So what do devs get if not royalties?

Sweatshop salary and shit work stability.

Yay.

 

[daegan]

How many games that pull this stuff stay $60 for very long? I’m already seeing Destiny 2 discounted. I see sale threads or preorder discount threads all the time - hell, I have a dirt cheap Kingdom Hearts III order on Amazon that I’ve had for multiple years.

$60 is an artificially low price that the US gets to pay at launch, based on what, being a larger market? Europe (particularly the UK) seems to see games launch higher and drop fast. Japan has games go used almost instantly for big discounts. Of course publishers are going to try to grab more money. But I don’t think that the death of the $60 game is due to microtransactions/DLC/loot boxes so much as it already died well before in the rest of the world and this is the only way pubs can figure out to drag a higher average spend per customer out of the US.

 

[ANDS]

So I just watched it and I don't wholeheartedly agree with Jim.

He says that games have season passes for sale whilst the devs don't know what's in them, then he talks about content being cut from the game to sell in a season pass. That strikes me as being a bit odd.

The two DLC schemes are meant to be different situations: either content cut from the game (Forza, Star Wars: BF and the non-expansion parts of Destiny) or they just know they want to produce DLC but don't quite know what it will be (Fallout 4 was accused of this, mostly because of the way they phrased the DLC).

He also talks about season passes being a way for publishers to get more money out of gamers but doesn't address games like Halo, Titanfall or Overwatch among others who won't charge for new content but use those dreaded lootboxes. What does he think of them?

He's hardly saying all developers do this and that's clear. Horizon: Zero Dawn was a complete game with an expansion coming up. Also Overwatch has it's own lootbox problem that's been kind of fixed.

There as many moot points as there are good points in the video to me and it just screams generalisations with a sensationalist twist.

Then again Jim would probably think of me as some corporate apologist cum swallower who gulps down whatever the corporate overlords can chuck at me, so I doubt he really cares, lol

You've not really outlined any "moot" points though.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

"Companies need to offset the cost of development through microtransactions, as games are still $60"

"Games may still be $60, but they make the cost up through DLC and microtransactions"

I agree on his last point about the costs being a self inflicted problem and one noone really asked for, but the main portion of the video just seemed to validate the argument he aimed to defy.

 

[Audioboxer]

Finished watching. Echoes my thoughts exactly in that Ubisoft/AC topic I was debating for pages with others. Thank goodness we have Jim Sterling considering some of the arguments going around these days. Especially those suggesting developers/publishers can't sustain themselves in this market lol.

That fucking Orc though. Soo much mileage out of those hands. Jim, post more on GAF! That was a good in-depth video. Nice of you to point out the publishers behaviour around tax avoidance, VA/writing pay and more. It's the gamers who get blamed though for being loud and rustling jimmies over complaints around obsessive monetization in paid for products.

 

[Nikana]

I don't understand the "we didn't ask for this."

That's utter nonsense. As gamers we always want the envelope to be pushed. That's why the high end of market exists. That's why the Xbox one x and PS4 exist.

That's why generations exist. If that was the case this industry wouldn't be on the cutting edge of technology every generation and the Oyua would of been the best selling console of all time.

 

[MADGAME]

I always thought royalties was distributed to the devs, not the writers. Didn't know this used to be different.

So what do devs get if not royalties?

I've read some dev bonuses are tied to metacritic scores. Pretty slimy stuff.

 

[SlasherJPC]

Jim's perspective of the industry chasing technical and graphical benchmarks on their own is a bit off the mark in my opinion. The fanbase most definitely demands the leaps we see every generation. People salivate over the minuet detail poured into every game and respond to it, thus others follow suit.

The digital foundry threads and videos are proof of that for sure. Insane views and commentary on all of those and all about graphics.

 

[thumb]

"Companies need to offset the cost of development through microtransactions, as games are still $60"

"Games may still be $60, but they make the cost up through DLC and microtransactions"

I agree on his last point about the costs being a self inflicted problem and one noone really asked for, but the main portion of the video just seemed to validate the argument he aimed to defy.

That's not quite capturing everything. He's also saying that the upfront cost of games, with their silver and gold editions and such, now averages above $60, at least for AAA releases. So the "price of games" has changed, it just changed on a sliding scale.

 

[Jaguar Victory]

His logic is hit and miss on this one. The real reason games can afford to still be $60 is because of market growth and # of copies sold. With the value you get from GAAS though I don't mind a DLC or loot box as long as it's unobtrusive. Destiny for example provides hundreds of hours of gaming so I'm cool with DLC for the most part.

 

[ANDS]

I don't understand the "we didn't ask for this."

That's utter nonsense. As gamers we always want the envelope to be pushed. That's why the high end of market exists. That's why the Xbox one x and PS4 exist.

That's why generations exist. If that was the case this industry wouldn't be on the cutting edge of technology every generation and the Oyua would of been the best selling console of all time.

It's clearly profitable as they keep on doing it. As much as folks can agree with the sentiment that this blurred line between DLC and "cut content" is getting out of control, there is a market for it. Persona 5 tossed alternate costumes behind a paywall, and despite folks griping about this, I saw posts of people saying "Well. . .it's ONLY 7.99" (or whatever it was). So yea the "we didn't. . ." argument definitely falls hollow on his part.

His logic is hit and miss on this one. The real reason games can afford to still be $60 is because of market growth and # of copies sold. With the value you get from GAAS though I don't mind a DLC or loot box as long as it's unobtrusive. Destiny for example provides hundreds of hours of gaming so I'm cool with DLC for the most part.

Where's your argument to support this? A media product like games staying a static 60 bucks this long is shocking and to suggest it's all based on market growth is a bit eyebrow raising considering console sales history.

 

[Conkerkid11]

"Companies need to offset the cost of development through microtransactions, as games are still $60"

"Games may still be $60, but they make the cost up through DLC and microtransactions"

I agree on his last point about the costs being a self inflicted problem and one noone really asked for, but the main portion of the video just seemed to validate the argument he aimed to defy.

Guess this is the post I needed to justify not watching the video.

Really didn't see how he was going to argue against $60 being worth less than it used to, and games costing more money to develop than before. Not surprised to see he wasn't capable of arguing against those points.

 

[MatPiscatella]

I'd like to know wh you don't feel that loot boxes are gambling.

Gambling consists of a risk of getting some return or no return on a wager. The player gets something or nothing.

A loot box is a blind purchase. The purchaser buys a thing, but the specific nature of thing is not specified. If you buy a loot box, it has some number of some variety of things in it. There's a guaranteed return. Buying a pack of baseball cards isn't gambling, neither is the Humble Monthly Bundle or any other variety of 'grab bag' mechanics.

These are different things.

Also, as with most things, you need only go looking for it.

I was referring to people within the industry.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

While I very much agree with you that numbers are very important in order for this argument to really start pushing forward, it is an objective fact that games are releasing with less and less content as time goes on. Forza 7 gutted series staple mechanics and put them in loot boxes. MvC went from having 55 characters with 6+ palette swaps each to MvC:I launching with 30 characters, 4 colors each. Asura's Wrath locked its ending behind a $7 paywall. Metro: Last Light's Ranger difficulty was a preorder bonus, offered for $5 to those whom didn't preorder or waited to get the game. Deus Ex: MD's story may never wrap up, but that launched at $60.

But content doesn't matter when it comes to numbers. People look at Game A on the PS2 with a single player campaign and multiple unlockable skins for $60. And Game B on the PS4 with just a single player campaign for $60. And they refuse to take into account how much more expensive game B was to make when taking into account value.

Like I get that it's easier to discern value in the form of tangible content and bonus unlockables, and increased production value seems like a natural progression of games, but that shit doesn't come for free. Which is why the numbers are important to these arguments. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd think that in most cases, the math of what you get in a $60 game is working out to be less and less favorable for the publishers as time goes on. Immaterial of less content.

 

[Hypereides]

The examples of Minecraft and PUBG are good, add Undertale for good measure. Games which do not put emphasis on high graphical fidelity, yet still achieve success and recognition.

Additionally, its good he pointed out how developers are underpaid for their hard work.

 

[MADGAME]

Gambling consists of a risk of getting some return or no return on a wager. The player gets something or nothing.

A loot box is a blind purchase. The purchaser buys a thing, but the specific nature of thing is not specified. If you buy a loot box, it has some number of some variety of things in it. There's a guaranteed return.

These are different things.

Did you know there are slot machines designed to give you a payout every single time? Naturally the payout is much less than the investment the majority of the time. So even though you are guaranteed a thing, it is still gambling. same with loot boxes. You are guaranteed a thing but may be of less value then your investment, especially if you don't want the thing you got or it is a duplicate item. Guaranteed return is still gambling.

 

[Nikana]

The examples of Minecraft and PUBG are good, add Undertale for good measure. Games which do not put emphasis on high graphical fidelity, yet still achieve success and recognition.

Additionally, its good he pointed out how developers are underpaid for their hard work.

Those are 3 exceptions in the thounsands of indie titles released.

 

[ANDS]

Gambling consists of a risk of getting some return or no return on a wager. The player gets something or nothing.

A loot box is a blind purchase. The purchaser buys a thing, but the specific nature of thing is not specified. If you buy a loot box, it has some number of some variety of things in it. There's a guaranteed return. Buying a pack of baseball cards isn't gambling, neither is the Humble Monthly Bundle or any other variety of 'grab bag' mechanics.

There's nothing stopping a casino from setting up a slot machine that is guaranteed to pay out "something." There is NOTHING that says the lowest value return on a machine has to be $0. You are absolutely gambling with a loot box.

 

[Monkeyball]

I think the problem will fix itself. Less AAAA games are being released already and people get more and more fed up with all these special editions and loot crates.

Smaller titles are getting more and more popular and will push the AAA industry away eventually. Like Jimboy said, only a few people care about animated hair other ridiculous details that drive the costs up to crazy heights.

Keep it simple, fun and affordable.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Glad that Jim made this. It fucking infuriate me when i see people making the "they have to put micro transaction to make their money back!" excuse. That has never been true. Where does that come from anyway? Is there any proof out there to back up this claim or is it just a belief that some people have?

I don't know. Some people may lack the eloquence to properly convey a point. However, it's not controversial to state that if a game's budget is X dollars, then it needs to make X plus a percentage of X dollars back in order for it to have been profitable and thus worth making. Loot box stuff certainly isn't the only way to generate revenue, but it has proven to be a lucrative and thus safe (from a publisher perspective) way to try to ensure a return on investment.

I think there's certainly a conversation worth having about the ethics of certain loot box implementations (or even loot boxes in general). However, I do sometimes find myself scratching my head when people act like there was zero need at all to explore other revenue streams or focus on the Games as a Service model. The move to the HD era brought with it plenty of studio closures and moves towards focusing on iterative sequels vs. exploration of new IPs. And while I'm open to the idea that studios living and dying based on the success of one game may not have been entirely necessary, I'm not particularly swayed by being able to point out only a handful of runaway indie success stories as evidence of the AAA model being something that should have been abandoned entirely by larger studios.

 

[Hypereides]

Those are 3 exceptions in the thounsands of indie titles released.

The point isn't that they're independent games. Its that high graphical fidelity isn't necessarily a requirement or guarantee to an equation of high sales, which seems to be a consensus in the AAA industry.

 

[MatPiscatella]

Did you know there are slot machines designed to give you a payout every single time? Naturally the payout is much less than the investment the majority of the time. So even though you are guaranteed a thing, it is still gambling. same with loot boxes. You are guaranteed a thing but may be of less value then your investment, especially if you don't want the thing you got or it is a duplicate item. Guaranteed return is still gambling.

Then you're talking cash returns, which also isn't the same as blind purchasing of goods.

These aren't the same things.

 

[dan2026]

No company that wilfully practices tax evasion gets to plead poverty about anything.
As a wise man once said, 'fuck 'em'.

 

[Nikana]

The point isn't that they're independent games. Its that high graphical fidelity isn't necessarily a requirement or guarantee of high sales, which seems to be a consensus in the AAA industry.

The hardcore understand this. The mainstream do not can be agrued. Which is why I pointed out the 3 games out of the thousands in the indie space that fail to be a financial success.

 

[Nick_C]

Glad that Jim made this. It fucking infuriate me when i see people making the "they have to put micro transaction to make their money back!" excuse. That has never been true. Where does that come from anyway? Is there any proof out there to back up this claim or is it just a belief that some people have?

I think it may also be a, "You can't prove that they don't need to put them in, either," situation as well. Activison-Blizzard reported $6.608B in revenue for the year of 2016. (PDF download)

They recorded $966 million in profit for current year ending December 31, 2016 (page 8). They released 7 games (including TMNT: Mutants in Manhatten, Ghostbusters 2016 movie tie-in, CoD 4 remaster and a Skylanders mobile game) in 2016. Blizzard released Overwatch.

They're on track to make even more this year. (PDF download)

 

[ANDS]

The point isn't that they're independent games. Its that high graphical fidelity isn't necessarily a requirement or guarantee to an equation of high sales, which seems to be a consensus in the AAA industry.

Who even makes this argument? If The Witcher 3 had been an empty headed game with poor combat, a terrible story and other superficial crutches you think AAA titles have in spade and are covering up with graphics fidelity, do you know anyone who really thinks it would have sold as much as it had? You're making the argument that most gamers are slack jawed yokels who buy games on graphics fidelity alone. Graphics catch folks attention, however if the game isn't there people don't tend to purchase.

 

[MADGAME]

Then you're talking cash returns, which also isn't the same as blind purchasing of goods.

These aren't the same things.

I agree cash and good are different, that wasn't the argument you made. You said it wasn't gambling because you are guaranteed goods. Blind purchase cash or blind purchase goods, it is absolutely gambling.

 

[MatPiscatella]

I agree cash and good are different, that wasn't the argument you made. You said it wasn't gambling because you are guaranteed goods. It is absolutely gambling.

I do not agree.

Baseball card packs aren't gambling, Humble Monthlies aren't gambling, Hatchimals aren't gambling, loot crates aren't gambling, collectibles sold as blind packs aren't gambling.

These are blind purchases.

Look, you can despise everything about blind purchases too, and think they're completely unethical and have no place in gaming.

I get that calling it gambling adds certain evil connotations to the argument. I just don't think it appropriate.