87 replies to this topic

[Jay Leon Hart]

Kaeb Odellas, on 13 December 2018 - 06:54 PM, said:

Costs have gone up because the quality and quantity of assets in games has gone up. Games are getting bigger and bigger in scope. Big AAA games demand more artists to generate more art. They demand more writers to write the story, dialogue, quests, and in-game text. They need more engineers to build more complex systems, and more QA staff to test them.

The original Doom was made by a dozen people, and that game was state-of-the-art at the time. The biggest games of today have dev teams that number in the hundreds. RDR2 needed a thousand.

I never said loot boxes were a good thing, but that's what they're for.

Costs have gone up because AAA developers got a semi for better and better graphics and putting Hollywood voice acting in their games (despite it often being really bad voice acting). They only have themselves to blame for pushing higher and higher graphical fidelity, if they can no longer support such a model. "Retro" looking games are very popular, so we know they don't need to keep pushing graphics, but they want to, because... reasons.

If you need loot boxes to cover the cost of making games (which nobody selling a full price game does, just look at how much they're making per annum of those things), then you're in the wrong business. If you can't make enough money to make games by selling games, stop making and selling them, you are bad at business. We shouldn't support bad business and the sooner loot boxes go the way of online passes, the better.

[FRAGTAST1C]

Jay Leon Hart, on 14 December 2018 - 12:36 AM, said:

Costs have gone up because AAA developers got a semi for better and better graphics and putting Hollywood voice acting in their games (despite it often being really bad voice acting). They only have themselves to blame for pushing higher and higher graphical fidelity, if they can no longer support such a model. "Retro" looking games are very popular, so we know they don't need to keep pushing graphics, but they want to, because... reasons.

If you need loot boxes to cover the cost of making games (which nobody selling a full price game does, just look at how much they're making per annum of those things), then you're in the wrong business. If you can't make enough money to make games by selling games, stop making and selling them, you are bad at business. We shouldn't support bad business and the sooner loot boxes go the way of online passes, the better.

Also, when it did become accepted to have limited frame rates? "Oh, 30fps is great. Let's go with it. Oh, 60fps is fine. Lock it and don't go past it". Work on these things instead of hiring famous people to deliver useless lines.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Extra Credits talks about the AAA game budget and suggests they need a price increase.
Jim Sterling [NSFW] talks about AAA game budgets and suggests they already increased in price.

Two differing opinions from creators I enjoy, both of whom have sources in the industry. I happen to side with Jim.

[Anjian]

Jay Leon Hart, on 13 December 2018 - 12:47 AM, said:

Ubisoft with the latest AC riddled with microtransactions Pretty much anything by EA with all the gambling mechanics Capcom putting ads into SFV Ten there's stuff outside the games; Rockstar / Take-Two suing a website for releasing accurate info about RDR2 CD Projekt Red with it's love of crunch and poor employee treatment [Edit] Talltale laying off 250 employees without pay when it had to close the doors [/Edit] AAA studios are all slowly turning into scumbags, it's a shame...

That's late in the news. AAA studios were turning into scumbags starting years ago. Today they are 200% completely scumbags.

[Anjian]

Grus, on 12 December 2018 - 05:55 PM, said:

Blizzard is releasing crap/broken content, Bethesda is relesing garbage, pgi's current patch is riddled with holes, and other AAA developers are releasing alpha test quality games for full price... so what the heck is going on? Is it the end times?

I would say they are ripe for a major disruption.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Jay Leon Hart, on 14 December 2018 - 12:31 AM, said:

That's exactly it! "Base price" is not the full game. Full game costs more than it used to, as that "extra content" was not developed by elves and pixies, but was cut from the game to sell off piecemeal.

Is the game still worth 60 bucks without all the extra stuff? Then I contend that it is a complete experience. It is the full game.

Jay Leon Hart, on 14 December 2018 - 12:31 AM, said:

So extra levels, characters and classes (which are often included in these different editions) are not part of the experience? OK then...

Read what I said. These extras are inessential to the game experience. Give me an example of a game that is demonstrably incomplete without special edition goodies. The best they give you is the chance to experience certain content earlier, which in some cases could actually be detrimental to the experience by reducing difficulty.

Jay Leon Hart, on 14 December 2018 - 12:31 AM, said:

Not true, expansion packs for games started generally development after a game had sold and sold well, not before it had even released. DLC is often stuff they still wanted to add to the game at launch but now they know they can just sell it for more £££ later. They are not the same thing and you know it.

Fair enough, but again, as long as the base game is still worth $60 without the DLC, I can't complain. It's that or make the games more expensive from the get-go.

Jay Leon Hart, on 14 December 2018 - 12:31 AM, said:

A naive position? When story DLC exists? Things like Asura's Wrath where the ending of the game is DLC? Sure, some of it is unrelated and new, but just a much is stuff intentionally cut just to sell off again at a later date. Naive indeed...

Asura's Wrath is an example of DLC executed the wrong way. Just because some people do it wrong doesn't make it an inherently bad concept. There are plenty examples of well-executed DLC. The Witcher 3's expansions were very good. Burial at Sea for BioShock Infinite was good. I've heard great things about GTA4's and the Mass Effect series' DLC.

DLCs are also great for revitalizing interest in games post-release. Supporting a game after release through DLC keeps it in the public eye. I've certainly found myself buying a game I had otherwise overlooked or forgotten when a DLC is released.

Jay Leon Hart, on 14 December 2018 - 12:31 AM, said:

If the base game is worth the full price, then the price of the game with that extra content is the cost of the game - you know, it's gone up quite a lot.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. If the base game costs $60 and provides $60 worth of content, then that's what it's worth. Any extras are literally just that. Extra.

Jay Leon Hart, on 14 December 2018 - 12:31 AM, said:

Costume DLC is particular egregious, since that sort of thing used to be unlocked ingame (like the recent PS4Spider-Man game), but now it;s cut out to sell off. So you're paying the same for the base game, but so much has been cut out it's just a shell of a game.

Most games allow you to unlock cosmetics for free and serve up some of the fancier ones for money. Big whoop. If your enjoyment of a game is marred by the fact that you have to pay extra for some completely irrelevant cosmetic content, then that's your problem.

Jay Leon Hart, on 14 December 2018 - 12:31 AM, said:

More value removed form a game, taking something away but charging even more. Devs do make games grindier, we have proof - see all the games who removed loot boxes then had to re-balance the entire ingame economy, because it was designed to play at a good pace when you spend even more money on the game you already paid for.



Yep, of course EA would lie. But who are they lying to? Probably the investors, but that's an even better reason to see them burn (but I'd rather all those people not get fired )

The danger is there. But again, poor execution of an idea doesn't make the idea inherently bad.

Edited by Kaeb Odellas, 14 December 2018 - 02:21 AM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Jay Leon Hart, on 14 December 2018 - 12:36 AM, said:

Costs have gone up because AAA developers got a semi for better and better graphics and putting Hollywood voice acting in their games (despite it often being really bad voice acting). They only have themselves to blame for pushing higher and higher graphical fidelity, if they can no longer support such a model. "Retro" looking games are very popular, so we know they don't need to keep pushing graphics, but they want to, because... reasons.

If you need loot boxes to cover the cost of making games (which nobody selling a full price game does, just look at how much they're making per annum of those things), then you're in the wrong business. If you can't make enough money to make games by selling games, stop making and selling them, you are bad at business. We shouldn't support bad business and the sooner loot boxes go the way of online passes, the better.

Why shouldn't devs attempt to push the limits on visual fidelity and character performances? Sure it's expensive, but people want that stuff. Without developers pushing for more powerful hardware to support higher graphical fidelity, video games would not have progressed beyond 2D sprites.

The popularity of retro visuals doesn't somehow invalidate games that push for photorealism. Retro graphics are popular and plentiful because they don't cost a lot to make, so smaller developers make use of that style.

And I never said the cost of game dev justifies the use of lootboxes. That's just the reason for it. There are other, less exploitative means to generate more revenue.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Kaeb Odellas, on 14 December 2018 - 02:07 AM, said:

Is the game still worth 60 bucks without all the extra stuff? Then I contend that it is a complete experience. It is the full game.

Read what I said. These extras are inessential to the game experience. Give me an example of a game that is demonstrably incomplete without special edition goodies. The best they give you is the chance to experience certain content earlier, which in some cases could actually be detrimental to the experience by reducing difficulty.

Fair enough, but again, as long as the base game is still worth $60 without the DLC, I can't complain. It's that or make the games more expensive from the get-go.

Asura's Wrath is an example of DLC executed the wrong way. Just because some people do it wrong doesn't make it an inherently bad concept. There are plenty examples of well-executed DLC. The Witcher 3's expansions were very good. Burial at Sea for BioShock Infinite was good. I've heard great things about GTA4's and the Mass Effect series' DLC.

DLCs are also great for revitalizing interest in games post-release. Supporting a game after release through DLC keeps it in the public eye. I've certainly found myself buying a game I had otherwise overlooked or forgotten when a DLC is released.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. If the base game costs $60 and provides $60 worth of content, then that's what it's worth. Any extras are literally just that. Extra.

Most games allow you to unlock cosmetics for free and serve up some of the fancier ones for money. Big whoop. If your enjoyment of a game is marred by the fact that you have to pay extra for some completely irrelevant cosmetic content, then that's your problem.

The danger is there. But again, poor execution of an idea doesn't make the idea inherently bad.

Then we will always disagree on what a game costs, because I see all the content for the game as the game and you see the on disc content as the game. Agree to disagree.

You say inessential to the game experience, I say they are part of it. You obviously agree, since you claim they are just not essential, so they are part of the game.

Ninja Theory released Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice, a game equal to or greater than many AAA titles. It was $30 / £25 - half the RRP of most other titles. No DLC. No season pass. No pre-order bonuses. No microtransactions. No loot boxes. Just a great game for a great price. So games do not, in fact, need to be more expensive without DLC.

Don't get me wrong, I like (some) DLC - I regularly buy it and will be buying the Spider-Man DLC once it's all released. However, I consider it part of the game, so I see the cost as part of the cost of the game. You do not. This is where we differ.

If the base game costs $60 then the sequel also costs $60, but is only worth $30 because half was cut out to sell for another $60? This is where we're going. Destiny had unlock forever colours. Destiny 2 removed them, in favour of 1 use colours. These were then put in the game's loot boxes, which in the sequel cost £££. Value removed form a game, because they could.

Yes, how dare I get antsy because something that used to be free is now removed and you have to pay extra. How unreasonable of me. Coming soon! changing a loadout in MWO costs MC! Surely, nobody will complain...

Agreed, loot boxes in F2P games are A-OK with me. Heck, I'm fine with a few even in EA titles - the MP portions ME3 & ME:A for example. Some of the best loot box implementation I've seen is in Smite from Hi-Rez. Once you unlock an item from a chest's loot list, you won't get it again. No duplicates, no garbage. If there are 6 items and you buy all 6 boxes? You now have all 6 items.

Kaeb Odellas, on 14 December 2018 - 02:18 AM, said:

Why shouldn't devs attempt to push the limits on visual fidelity and character performances? Sure it's expensive, but people want that stuff. Without developers pushing for more powerful hardware to support higher graphical fidelity, video games would not have progressed beyond 2D sprites.

And I never said the cost of game dev justifies the use of lootboxes. That's just the reason for it. There are other, less exploitative means to generate more revenue.

They can push it all they like, but then they don't get to complain that "games are too expensive to make"

No, the reason for loot boxes is the reason for any heavy-handed monetisation - you want more money. Which is fine, but once you hit that peak (which many of these companies are now doing) the only way is down and they have nobody else to blame for the hyperinflated expectations of their investors.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Jay Leon Hart, on 14 December 2018 - 03:12 AM, said:

Then we will always disagree on what a game costs, because I see all the content for the game as the game and you see the on disc content as the game. Agree to disagree.

You say inessential to the game experience, I say they are part of it. You obviously agree, since you claim they are just not essential, so they are part of the game.

Ninja Theory released Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice, a game equal to or greater than many AAA titles. It was $30 / £25 - half the RRP of most other titles. No DLC. No season pass. No pre-order bonuses. No microtransactions. No loot boxes. Just a great game for a great price. So games do not, in fact, need to be more expensive without DLC.

Don't get me wrong, I like (some) DLC - I regularly buy it and will be buying the Spider-Man DLC once it's all released. However, I consider it part of the game, so I see the cost as part of the cost of the game. You do not. This is where we differ.

If the base game costs $60 then the sequel also costs $60, but is only worth $30 because half was cut out to sell for another $60? This is where we're going. Destiny had unlock forever colours. Destiny 2 removed them, in favour of 1 use colours. These were then put in the game's loot boxes, which in the sequel cost £££. Value removed form a game, because they could.

Yes, how dare I get antsy because something that used to be free is now removed and you have to pay extra. How unreasonable of me. Coming soon! changing a loadout in MWO costs MC! Surely, nobody will complain...

Agreed, loot boxes in F2P games are A-OK with me. Heck, I'm fine with a few even in EA titles - the MP portions ME3 & ME:A for example. Some of the best loot box implementation I've seen is in Smite from Hi-Rez. Once you unlock an item from a chest's loot list, you won't get it again. No duplicates, no garbage. If there are 6 items and you buy all 6 boxes? You now have all 6 items.

So if in an alternate universe Ninja Theory had released Hellblade with the same features it has now, but with an added cosmetic system that allowed you to purchase different hats for your character, would your opinion on it change? Would it now be worth less than $30 because of this hat DLC? The hats are inessential to the game experience, but still part of it. Is the game diminished by the addition of hats?

Hellblade is considerably narrower in scope than your average $60 AAA game. You can't compare it in price to something like Assassin's Creed because they very different games with different goals.

And Destiny's not a great comparison here. Sure Destiny 2's cosmetic system might hold less value now, but given the absolutely shocking lack of content the original Destiny had at launch, Destiny 2 still comes out ahead.

Jay Leon Hart, on 14 December 2018 - 03:12 AM, said:

They can push it all they like, but then they don't get to complain that "games are too expensive to make"

No, the reason for loot boxes is the reason for any heavy-handed monetisation - you want more money. Which is fine, but once you hit that peak (which many of these companies are now doing) the only way is down and they have nobody else to blame for the hyperinflated expectations of their investors.

Of course they want more money. Money keeps the lights on in the building. More money gives them the opportunity to expand production, push boundaries further and take greater risks. Money lets them survive mistakes. Money keeps shareholders and investors happy.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Kaeb Odellas, on 14 December 2018 - 03:35 AM, said:

So if in an alternate universe Ninja Theory had released Hellblade with the same features it has now, but with an added cosmetic system that allowed you to purchase different hats for your character, would your opinion on it change? Would it now be worth less than $30 because of this hat DLC? The hats are inessential to the game experience, but still part of it. Is the game diminished by the addition of hats?

Hellblade is considerably narrower in scope than your average $60 AAA game. You can't compare it in price to something like Assassin's Creed because they very different games with different goals.

Of course they want more money. Money keeps the lights on in the building. More money gives them the opportunity to expand production, push boundaries further and take greater risks. Money lets them survive mistakes. Money keeps shareholders and investors happy.

You seem to misunderstand me. I'm not saying all DLC removes value (some certainly does, but not all). If the standard edition costs £50 and the season pass costs £30 and the pre-order bonus levels cost £10 post-release, then the game overall costs £90. Would these imaginary hats lower the worth of Hellbalde? No. Would they increase how much the full game costs? Yes.

You keep saying inessential, but that's only your view. What you or I deem essential to gameplay is not the same as everyone else. If they were truly not worth buying, if they truly added nothing, then they wouldn't sell them, because nobody would buy them. The mere fact these items are sold, means someone is buying them, which means they have gameplay value to someone.

Yes, I said as much - they need money. However, a number of developers & publishers have peaked - they can no longer make more money compared to last year or last quarter. The market is too saturated with products and "live services" and people only have so much money and time. The model is unsustainable and I highly doubt it will last past 2021, 2022 at a push. Then the bubble bursts, just like in 1983.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Jay Leon Hart, on 14 December 2018 - 03:53 AM, said:

You seem to misunderstand me. I'm not saying all DLC removes value (some certainly does, but not all). If the standard edition costs £50 and the season pass costs £30 and the pre-order bonus levels cost £10 post-release, then the game overall costs £90. Would these imaginary hats lower the worth of Hellbalde? No. Would they increase how much the full game costs? Yes.

You keep saying inessential, but that's only your view. What you or I deem essential to gameplay is not the same as everyone else. If they were truly not worth buying, if they truly added nothing, then they wouldn't sell them, because nobody would buy them. The mere fact these items are sold, means someone is buying them, which means they have gameplay value to someone.

Yes, I said as much - they need money. However, a number of developers & publishers have peaked - they can no longer make more money compared to last year or last quarter. The market is too saturated with products and "live services" and people only have so much money and time. The model is unsustainable and I highly doubt it will last past 2021, 2022 at a push. Then the bubble bursts, just like in 1983.

If a game offers an unsatisfactory experience without DLC, then the DLC is essential to the experience. If a gane is 100% fine without it, then it the DLC is inessential. That's it.

Train Simulator is $29.99 on Steam but has over $8000 in DLC available. You do not need the DLC to play the game. Is it a $30 game or an $8000 game? Damn near every AAA release now has a Collector's edition that includes physical tchotchkes for twice the price. Are they $60 games or $120? Why do you define the base price of a game as base game price + DLC when the DLC is entirely optional?

Does this apply to other things too? Do you think of the price of a car as the price of its base model, or with all the extra features?

I highly doubt we're coming up on another great video game crash anytime soon, even if AAA games continue as they are. Home video games were much smaller niche back then. Now they're mainstream. Ubiquitous. There are people who make a lot of money playing video games for a living.

Edited by Kaeb Odellas, 14 December 2018 - 11:18 AM.

[Jackal Noble]

Kaeb Odellas, on 14 December 2018 - 11:13 AM, said:

Train Simulator

I'm going to stop you right there.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Jackal Noble, on 14 December 2018 - 11:15 AM, said:

I'm going to stop you right there.

Do you actually have something of substance to say on this?

[Jackal Noble]

Kaeb Odellas, on 14 December 2018 - 11:16 AM, said:

Do you actually have something of substance to say on this?

Sure, a game that simulates running a train, the concept is bizarre and not appealing to sane people.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Jackal Noble, on 14 December 2018 - 11:36 AM, said:

Sure, a game that simulates running a train, the concept is bizarre and not appealing to sane people.

You're posting on a forum for a video game about pretend giant robots. I'm guessing you have spent money on said pretend giant robots, despite the game being completely free to play. If anyone is insane, it's us. At least with these simulator games one might come away with knowledge about how the world works. Does MWO offer anything like that?

Gaming as a hobby is big enough to accomodate all sorts of games for all sorts of people. There's no need to be a gatekeeper. There's room enough for everyone.

[Jackal Noble]

psshhhhh Giant robots shooting simplistically/conveniently categorized transferable weapons is super realistic.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Kaeb Odellas, on 14 December 2018 - 11:13 AM, said:

If a game offers an unsatisfactory experience without DLC, then the DLC is essential to the experience. If a gane is 100% fine without it, then it the DLC is inessential. That's it.

Train Simulator is $29.99 on Steam but has over $8000 in DLC available. You do not need the DLC to play the game. Is it a $30 game or an $8000 game? Damn near every AAA release now has a Collector's edition that includes physical tchotchkes for twice the price. Are they $60 games or $120? Why do you define the base price of a game as base game price + DLC when the DLC is entirely optional?

Does this apply to other things too? Do you think of the price of a car as the price of its base model, or with all the extra features?

Whether the game is satisfactory or not doesn't matter. DLC costs money and that money is part of the cost of the game. We seem to disagree, oh well.

I suppose a game with $8,000 worth of DLC would cost $8,000 to experience the full game, yes. Unless you can get all that extra content without paying the $8,000?

Why define the price as the base game + DLC? Because the DLC is useless without the game, it requires the game to function, so is intrinsically part of the game. You even call it the base game, not just the game. You know it's not the complete game.

A car analogy? Sure, OK. If Car Mk I costs £30,000 with all the mod-cons one year, then next year Car Mk II costs £30,000 without any mod-cons, but the mod-cons cost an additional £10,000, does Car Mk II cost the same as Car Mk II to get the same experience?

If you buy a roast dinner one week and it includes meat, veg, Yorkshire pud & gravy for £5, but the next week it's just £5 for the meat and the rest are each £1 extra, is the cost of a roast dinner still only £5?

[Khobai]

Grus, on 12 December 2018 - 05:55 PM, said:

Blizzard is releasing crap/broken content, Bethesda is relesing garbage, pgi's current patch is riddled with holes, and other AAA developers are releasing alpha test quality games for full price... so what the heck is going on? Is it the end times?

its millenials theyre incompetent

ive seen engineering graduates at work that dont even know joule's law...

lol companies are even starting to hire back older people because of how bad it is

Edited by Khobai, 14 December 2018 - 04:41 PM.

[SilentScreamer]

Khobai, on 14 December 2018 - 04:38 PM, said:

its millenials theyre incompetent

ive seen engineering graduates at work that dont even know joule's law...

lol companies are even starting to hire back older people because of how bad it is

Happens in all industries. Company wants to cut costs, lay off experienced workers and hire some fresh faces at half wages. The new workers do not perform as well and end up costing the company more in the long run due to mistakes and delays.

Not that workforce loyalty is a thing either. Aside from government jobs, how many people spend twenty or even forty years with the same company? My record is five and a half years. If you want to keep up with the Jones's, you gotta move up, and to move up your best chance is move to a new employer.

[Khobai]

SilentScreamer, on 14 December 2018 - 05:02 PM, said:

Happens in all industries. Company wants to cut costs, lay off experienced workers and hire some fresh faces at half wages. The new workers do not perform as well and end up costing the company more in the long run due to mistakes and delays.

Not that workforce loyalty is a thing either. Aside from government jobs, how many people spend twenty or even forty years with the same company? My record is five and a half years. If you want to keep up with the Jones's, you gotta move up, and to move up your best chance is move to a new employer.

Im pretty sure its colleges too. Theyre spending more time teaching kids about safe spaces, microagressions, 23+ different genders, and how being an alpha male is toxic than teaching practical skills/knowledge lol. millenials are useless snowflakes. theyre a complete waste of a generation lol.

Theres something really wrong with the education system when you can graduate from college with a masters in engineering and were never taught joule's law or at least not taught any of its practical applications.

Edited by Khobai, 14 December 2018 - 05:10 PM.