{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
12/4/2022 3:20:41 PM
21
[quote] Massive pre-order cancels apparently are happening.[/quote]
If this is true, good, but the problem is, this business got its hook in a lot of the gamers in this community saying they will not buy it or that they are canceling their pre-order. This generation needs to wake up and stop letting businesses like this one take advantage of them. Back in the day developers had to work to get gamers to buy their games, and that was because that generation was a lot more intelligent than today's generation which just throws money at the screen/shop.
Take a look at how 343 literally destroyed Halo Infinite following this business footsteps down to the T, leaving the entire game Barebone from what a Halo game offers and changing most things about it that were enjoyable playing a Halo game for the lame shop that they shove in the gamers face. This is how bad things are with gaming today. Once a great game made by an actual developer that cared about the work they produced and it showed throughout the entire game, the original Bungie.
This Fortnite BS needs to go.
This business is even on Reddit trying to hype up the next season knowing it's just going to be more of the same, and it's why I stopped buying the seasons a couple of years back. This business is more talk than actual action, and that is a huge red flag.
English
-
Disagree. 1. The game as product model is dead. It’s as dead as a Blockbuster Video store in a Netflix world. The problem is that both sides (gamers and devs) want the aspects of the new paradigm (Game as Service) that works to their own advantage while decrying the parts that don’t Gamers love the ongoing service, ability to add new content in the fly, and customize the game to the preferences of the player base. But the want to rage about cost, bugs, and that this customization often requires releasing a bare-bones (minimal viable) product and the changing it as feedback comes in. Devs love the ability to make repairs to the game and even overhauls that broadband and cheap mass storage allows. As well as the ability to keep adding on to an existing game instead of duplicating work to build new (not new) game as a sequel. But get frustrated when gamers get a product on Day One that is missing features, has bugs that damage the play experience, and feels like it was rushed to market to meet a deadline. While not feeling like it was worth the money they were being charged. Both sides need to change. Devs need to clean up their act where business practices are concerned. That process seems to be gaining momentum. The last really bad actors seem to be EA and Activision. (343 and Bioware are just poorly managed, and need new leadership.) Gamers need to rein in their expectations a bit around what their money entitles them to, and how to act like sane people when they are unhappy with a product.
-
Previous generation wasn’t smarter. Game developers have gotten craftier in their marketing tactics and monetization.
-
They had to. Because $60 for a game is a unrealistic price point that hasn't kept pace with inflation. Never mind how much more expensive (and how much more financial risk there is) in making video games today. A single failed game can often be enough to drive a studio to bankruptcy....or have its owners (if its a subsidiary) shut down operations.
-
Edited by Doctor_Roidberg: 12/6/2022 1:56:53 AMYes… and no. Success of a singular title at the $60 price point can carry a studio. The price point for AAA has moved up to $70, which I don’t have much argument with. But a knockout title like Elden Ring or GoW Ragnarok can absolutely sustain a studio. High quality game at a fair price. Meanwhile you have EA’s monetization scheme to release unfinished games with massive issues to gradually patch over time while utilizing as many microtransactions as possible. Remember Anthem? I remember you telling me that the E3 Anthem showcase wasn’t a misrepresentation of the actual game. But boy howdy, we see how Anthem went. Anthem WOULDNT have failed if they hadn’t done what EA loves to do.
-
That only occurred for next gen titles. And it still doesn’t begin to cover 30 years of games being that same $60. To cover inflation alone we should be paying over $100 US.
-
Edited by Doctor_Roidberg: 12/7/2022 10:19:06 AM[quote]That only occurred for next gen titles.[/quote] The $70 price point? True, but considering the number of PS5s literally flying off the shelf the $70 will be the standard fare before too long. [quote]And it still doesn’t begin to cover 30 years of games being that same $60.[/quote] Considering the success of these studios in turning a profit, I don’t think that’s a problem for them. It might be BECOMING a problem, but such is true for most everybody with the way inflation has gone. [quote]To cover inflation alone we should be paying over $100 US.[/quote] Aye, which is why a large number of titles offer “Digital Deluxe Editions” or some fancy markup that offers other benefits besides just the game. Lightfall’s Digital Deluxe is at precisely that $100 price point. My issue doesn’t lie with game companies requesting more up front, because then it’s a very clear transaction. My issue isn’t even with microtransactions, to an extent. It’s when microtransactions and other monetization efforts are high in number while the game quality suffers. Something we’re seeing in real time with Destiny. Luke Smith told us years ago that the Whisper of the Worm ornaments funded the Zero Hour mission. Two exotic ornaments paying for the creation of an entire secret mission with its own exotics. When was the last time we got one such high quality secret mission? Bad Juju, more or less. Yet the number of monetized exotic ornaments has exploded since Whisper, even into legendary weapons and armor. Yet Bungie sees fit to even start charging players extra for the two Dungeons this year? Really? So, I don’t buy it. Inflation, it’s a real thing. But inflation is percentile, not multiplicative. Which is the metric by which the number of microtransactions in D2 has increased, while content has either remained at the same level or decreased, depending on the season.
-
All you got from Zero hour and whisper was the two exotic weapons and maybe a ship from each. What we are paying for in the new dungeons are 6 unique legendary weapons, their own unique armour and an exotic for each. Compare to Shattered Throne and pit of heresy, that only offer 1 exotic each and shared loot with their destination. I think I know what I prefer. even if it costs a little extra.
-
That’s not my argument. My argument is that Luke Smith himself said that the two ornaments paid for the missions. Meanwhile we’ve had over 80 other exotic weapon ornaments, just as many armor ornaments, and countless legendary ornaments, and we’re still being expected to fork over even more money for the new Dungeons? The numbers aren’t adding up.
-
I mean when I consider: - Activision leaving in Shadowkeep, they lost a massive ammount of resources and money for work on the game. - After that they had a huge management shake up and announced their unification of vision. - Then after a while they started mass hiring and to this day still are. I just don't think they are in the mood to be doing free missions like that anymore. Especially since they plan to be handling multiple franchises and even taking those to books, t.v etc...
-
Edited by Doctor_Roidberg: 12/9/2022 6:11:42 AMOkay. So they can’t be surprised when people aren’t happy with the game quality dipping and micros rising. Edit: case and point, Bungie’s new Lightfall trailer? The weapons shown in it are reskins of the Moon Lectern weapons. Lol.
-
When you said reskin I imagined the weapon having all the little doo-dads that the Shadowkeep weapons process. Which is what I didn't see and just looked like weapons with Gambit Jadestone equipped honestly. Also thank you for waking me up with that trailer. Didn't know it existed. The subjective quality of a work, is for each individual to decide anyways.
-
Do you then. Enjoy your reskins.
-
-
It is a problem. Just look at the number of studios that go under or get shuttered by publishers if the have an IP that flops. Making video games is even worse than movies. It’s an expensive, high risk business with thin profit margins. We are not over charged for games. Gamers just resent paying the fair market value for what they are getting.
-
Edited by TheShadow: 12/4/2022 6:25:43 PM[quote]Previous generation wasn’t smarter. Game developers have gotten craftier in their marketing tactics and monetization.[/quote] Disagree, Gamers back then had no problem at all speaking with their wallets. Today's schools kids are way under educated and the parents use the TV as a baby sitter.
-
Edited by Doctor_Roidberg: 12/5/2022 2:52:46 AMNope. Older generation didn’t have continual access to internet. Games functioned on an offline disc model. The concept of “games as a service” wasn’t realized until post-2000. Internet opened the door to massive amounts of marketing and advertisement routes, including the creation of DLC and microtransactions. And all the game producers the prior generation witnessed take off have now grown into corporate entities that lost sight of the point of the video game industry and view it solely as a cash grab, rather than the creators who actually had passion for the product. Meanwhile people like you blame it on “these darn kids” like the father of two who plays D2 for a few hours on the weekend and doesn’t actually pay attention to the quality of the game isn’t a decent chunk of the current Lightfall preorder. Every generation is equally sh*t. The only difference is the way in which that sh*t manifests. You say my generation is a bunch of morons, I say we learned from the best. Difference is I know my generation blows, meanwhile you’re over here jerking yourself off with one hand while shaking your other fist at those darn kids, ruining your Halo Bungie I’ll agree my generation falls for stupid marketing strategies and lets corporations get away with robbery. But don’t try to grandstand to me and act like it’s purely Gen Z or millennials that let the videogame industry get to this point.
-
Edited by TheShadow: 12/5/2022 4:12:59 AMYou're so full of bologna. One of my first accounts on PC was in 2005. Trying to feed me this nonsense gamers didn't have continual access to the internet. [spoiler]🤣🤣🤣😂[/spoiler]
-
Edited by Doctor_Roidberg: 12/5/2022 5:07:04 AMHow exactly does that contradict my assertion that “games as a service” didn’t start until post-2000?? Sony was the first major platform to host online multiplayer games starting in 2000 with the PS2 online play. There were a bunch of low level titles released prior that didn’t have any major success, so I go by 2000 as the metric because of Sony. You saying you had an account as early as 2005 [i][b]proves my point, grandpa.[/b][/i]
-
Edited by TheShadow: 12/5/2022 3:13:31 PMNo one said you "contradict" anything. I'm just laughing at the nonsense about the internet knowing PC games especially gambling was around for a while before Sony was playing on line. You attempt to down play how things were back then with gamers and that is the actual funny part. Anyway, good luck with trying to pass off gamers were not more intelligent then today's generation 😂
-
Edited by Doctor_Roidberg: 12/5/2022 5:32:31 AMYou said I was full of it then mentioned your ‘05 account. That implies my assertion about the time frame was wrong. People weren’t smarter ten, twenty years ago when it came to videogames. It’s just that corporations hadn’t figured out how best to monetize their product. End of story.
-
I heard that argument when I was teenie and that was in the early-90, boomer.
