{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/20/2018 6:26:05 AM
6
It actually makes sense. Over time the scope of games has grown incredibly. Consumers now enjoy motion captured performances, 100s of hours of voice acting and assets/worlds that are infinitely more detailed, not to mention the far more complex AI, physics and systems in play. Games are also persistent and online and have to support a community of connected gamers years after launch. The cost of games has actually gone down over time since the cartridge days so what do you expect when the cost and scope of making games increases but the price doesn’t? The money has to come from somewhere.
The reason why games seemed revelatory and life changing ‘back in the day’ is because you were in your teens and now that you’re out of those formative years in which media had a profoundly greater impact to your life, you cannot recapture those kinds of feelings.
Disclaimer: I quit Destiny 2 because I think it is a shallow hamster wheel of an experience so do not interpret this as any kind of defence of D2z
English
-
Games are more expensive then ever due to publisher/developer choice to make profits for/with their shareholders rather than giving complete experiences for nearly every game that fits the 'Games as Service' bill aka online necessity, 'open world' 'triple A' experiences. They sell you a 60~whatever currency game, put more costs in it with the imaginary Season Pass (play now for DLC that may mean something) and microtransactions. That isn't cheaper, it doesn't support the expenses of the game - they intend for the initial sales of the game to do that, or that would be dumb. (Star Wars Bfront 1/2 is a good example of this - of course it would sell it's a Star Wars game the name sells itself. But they then choose too put in lootboxes, for greed, not to cover costs.) It would be stupid to say 'well if we don't make out money with the initial sales for the first idk month of release then we'll have to rely on people buying micro-transactions' then they shouldn't be game devs/publishers. It doesn't work like that. Every expense is an expense chosen by the Developers and by Publishers. And remember tech makes it easier day by day for them to do their jobs in terms of improving visuals/design/development - it's not like they work with tech back in the 2000s trying to make games cinematic. The only excusable games with additional expenses are Free to Play ones. Because then the money is coming on the side and hopefully not in a 'Pay to Win' scenario. Also this isn't supposed to be rude to you so sorry if you interpreted like that, just the 'costs of game have gone down' isn't true at all. Again it's all publisher/dev choice to make their jobs more expensive or not and it's not always linked to quality either. [spoiler]Also you can totally re-experience the 'teen years' by playing quality games, I played Hollow Knight a year ago, blew my mind how full of character and charm it was, the price tag on it, the fact a free, good DLC was coming to it with new bosses and areas. I played Horizon Zero Dawn recently, the first open world in a long time to actually feel like it deserved the description of 'open world' different areas with different visuals, a gorgeous colour palette, a story that intrigues me. A single-player experience I enjoyed (no micro-transactions I believe - though paid DLC which I haven't bought yet but heard good things about it so I'm willing to pay). As for an online game? Warframe. I choose to spend money supporting the devs because they are consistent - they're not perfect, they do a lot of changes that don't work out - but at least they work with the community, listen to feedback, actively livestream to talk about upcoming updates. [/spoiler]
-
Edited by Shadow Artiste: 3/20/2018 8:39:12 PMYeah games are more expensive. I paid $129 for Mortal Kombat on the Super Nintendo. A game that was made by, probably 10 people, on a cartridge that holds probably 5MB of data. I’ll be buying Farcry 5 in a few days for about $70-80 (I live in Australia). A game made by hundreds of people that I guarantee took thousands of man hours to produce. Games are cheaper today than they were and they’re infinitely more complex and take a LOT more time and money to make.
-
I again agree to disagree when many games don't seem to take 'longer to make', talking about those 2-3 year sequel franchises that just seem to reskin the game, sell at a premium price, promises of season pass, pre-order bonuses, other tat. Even games being remastered can be sold at a premium 'new game' price if the publisher pushes it. I was foolish enough to buy Skyrim Remastered, expecting IDK bug fixes in the what, 4 years after initial release? What had Bethesda done in that time? Water looks nicer, barely no meaningful graphical updates. All DLC present. Mods can work to a limited degree in my experience. But no on the removing game-breaking bugs - which can be rectified via console command on PC. So it's not like it's unknown what these bugs are and given that the PC crowd developed mods to fix quests, Bethesda literally could have just plagiarised modder's work, which they arguably did in some of the Fallout 4 DLC + Quests... [spoiler] AC is a good example of a franchise that does that. The same trailing missions, exposition over a slow walk, collectable hunts, chase missions? The same stuff that became boring in AC: 2. I don't know know too much about Origins - so I won't lump it straight in, but I assume it decidedly keeps those same miserable mission arcetypes, and who knows, maybe something new? Regardless of it's scale (I mean they have micro-transactions and loot boxes for a single-player experience...gg Ubisoft) I could argue the same of Far Cry? But I really don't know enough to be going down that route at all. But I know they reused the entire FC 4 map in Primal, a full priced game where you'd expect a new map, regardless if it was a tide-over until 5. Like where's the excuse for that? You can't defend a full priced game in these kinds of cases of just recycling content. Blood Dragon was a £15(?) joke DLC that did use one of the islands from FC3 as it's location - but it was cheap. Not fully priced. Oh and Far Cry 5 single player confirmed to have micro-transactions...in case the player wants to 'choose' to 'speed up' progress...so more of the 'pay not to play the game'... I mean CoD is just CoD, it's the same FPS over and over, maybe spiced up with a Zombies mode or mech armour/ body enhancement stuff. But it doesn't seem to add anything worthwhile, just a new title, new number, buy it. And the season pass and don't forget to pre-order.[/spoiler] There are games that are worth their development time, CD Projekt Red does not disappoint, and Cyberpunk will sell at a premium price but then will offer a quality game, will sell actual meaningful Story DLC and give out free filler content if they're doing it anything like Witcher 3...But there is so many more that add these extra money-makers for pure profit. (I remember when SW BF2 turned off their lootboxes, but in a statement insured their 'investors' it wouldn't affect projected earnings - because that's what they care about, not the quality of life of the game or the actual consumers.And that it proves that in most cases these extra spend money buttons are purely for additional money, they really don't go to help with dev costs or whatever) Though I honestly hope that you enjoy Far Cry 5, I really do.
-
Edited by NobodyJustBrad: 3/20/2018 1:33:14 PMStandard versions of video games have been $60 for over a decade. The cost to make them has only gone up. No, the initial sales do NOT cover expenses. A company needs REVENUE and PROFIT to succeed. It's very simple. And this part: [quote]And remember tech makes it easier day by day for them to do their jobs in terms of improving visuals/design/development - it's not like they work with tech back in the 2000s trying to make games cinematic.[/quote] It only shows that you don't know shit about game design/development.
-
Interesting insight.
-
Really? I'm literally playing the Jak and Daxter trilogy right now, I'd take it over D2 tbh. I'll probably play Ratchet and Clank next. And after that I'm hoping the rumored Spyro Remaster will be out. Old games with poor graphics but great content will beat D2 any day of the week.
