Sheikah

And what about PS1 games that were 30 quid, PS2 games that were 30-40 quid, and PS4 games that are around 50 at launch? At worst you could say prices were inconsistent with time, at least when it comes to Nintendo. When it comes to anyone who isn't Nintendo and doesn't use cartridges then I'd say there has been a trend for increasing price over time. That's before you even factor in that for that 50 quid, you're often not getting the full experience, unlike in the past. There have been many occasions where launch content has seemingly been paywalled for extra revenue. Then you're also paying for Plus to play online, and some of that money goes back to the developers who host the servers no doubt. You're paying in more ways than you know, for less than you think. Compare costs of launch PS1, PS2, PS3 and PS4 games, none of which use cartridges. I'd also like to bring the whole point of this "cost of games over time" argument back to why it was raised, because it now seems like you're trying to score a point without realising why. Ronnie, I can assume you're making the point "SNES/N64 games cost way more" to point out that games are comparably cheap today, which means developers aren't getting enough money to make more expensive games. I would counter this argument and suggest that those heinously expensive games were probably partly due to cartridge cost, the smaller number of sales they would generate (and therefore lower return), and also due to whatever Nintendo was charging developers to put out games on their system.

No the N64 was the anomaly due to the costly cartridges, rather than anything else (as in the developers weren't getting more money, it was going to cover that cost). Look at the competitor games (PS1 games) which were mostly around 30 pounds and you got all the content on the disc. PS2 games were usually around the 30-40 mark as I recall. They weren't the 50 quid they are now for the "base experience". Cost of production has no doubt gone up but like Ronnie you've overlooked the increasing size of the audience as time has gone on. A game can cost more to make but if there are more people to buy it (and DLCs) and at a higher price versus the past then that's enough. Which indeed, was the case for Witcher 3. Like I've been saying, if developers absolutely, unquestionably needed microtransactions to fund development of their "AAA" scale game then a game on the scale of Witcher 3, which had no microtransactions simply could not have happened. It could not have been made and the company still be in business if microtransactions were a necessity to develop a AAA-scale game.

And I don't understand after giving you the example of Witcher 3 why you still seem to insist that these practices are needed to support the costs. Clearly they aren't, or Witcher 3 wouldn't have existed without them. There are plenty of games as big, and even bigger than Witcher 3 in terms of game sales, so there's no reason why they couldn't have adopted Witcher 3's model of game plus DLC and made loads from sales. Hell, Destiny and Destiny 2 follow the exact model of Witcher 3 yet they also have loot boxes and other microtransactions. It's extra cash on top. The original Destiny didn't even introduce microtransactions for over a year so to say that they were needed to support development (long after the game released) just isn't true. I'm also not buying that the fact these games being multiplayer accounts for this shortfall and need for microtransactions. For one, Halo 3 last gen topped something like 1.3 million players simultaneously online and did fine without ever introducing them despite that kind of server load. And as mentioned by another poster, TF2 didn't add microtransactions until years after release, and only when the game went F2P. In the case of EA games, a lot of people question the inclusion of such microtransactions in games that also cost £50. I also do not buy your comment about AAA being the cheapest it has ever been. For one, I find many games to generally (but not always) be about £10 more expensive at launchcthan 10 years ago (often closer to £50 now compared to £40). Second, what you're paying for now is often the base experience, with content sometimes being locked away as DLC (e.g. as done with Splatoon - Nintendo must make ludicrous amounts of profit on amiibo). The biggest tell for me is that EA can make more revenue than Witcher 3 made in total just from microtransactions. Clearly it is so profitable that there's no reason why they wouldn't want to do it that way. What are your thoughts on EA making more revenue from microtransactions than CDPR made from the entirity of Witcher 3?

Made me lol, have some thanks.

Point 1 - surprised you forgot Splatoon in your example with its significant lock-aways (or it just didn't suit your argument). How do you respond to that? Point 2 - Yeah, definitely. Gaming has grown massively as a hobby along with its audience. Not just that, but the way people game, and the amount of games they buy (or receive as part of paid subscriptions). Just recently it was announced that Destiny 2 sold more digitally on console than physical. So we can't even get a real measure of how big it is anymore, since digital isn't tracked. Also: Year UK Population 0 to 15 years (%) 16 to 64 years (%) 65 years and over (%) 1975 56,226,000 24.9 61.0 14.1 1985 56,554,000 20.7 64.1 15.2 1995 58,025,000 20.7 63.4 15.8 2005 60,413,000 19.3 64.7 15.9 2015 65,110,000 18.8 63.3 17.8 2025 69,444,000 18.9 60.9 20.2 2035 73,044,000 18.1 58.3 23.6 2045 76,055,000 17.7 57.8 24.6 Purely on population growth alone I can make this argument. Ignoring how much more massively mainstream gaming is these days, and hence more applicable to the populace, the fact there are millions more people knocking about to game means it's you who has to make an argument why gaming is become less popular to still have, say, only the same amount of people gaming as there were 10 or 20 years ago. In other words, why are you suggesting that the audience may only be as big as it was say 15 years ago? Point 3 - they released Witcher 3 with none of those dubious money-making schemes in place. Saying after the fact "but it sold dead well" is not a good response. So what? What they did with Witcher 3 is a proof of principle that you're wrong, as they avoided doing any of the things you said needed to be done to support the so called "4K push". And the games that are doing those things? They're many of the biggest games going; if Witcher 3 didn't need to do those things to thrive, why do they? The simple reason is money - it's massively profitable. They don't need to do it, but why leave money on the table? Point 4 - Naive, lol. Come on, you don't think the latest furore with EA and Battlefront 2 has happened because they "need" to do it to support the cost of development, rather than to make ridiculous bank to please shareholders? Here's an example: By last March, Witcher 3 made $250M in revenue: https://www.pcgamesn.com/the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/the-witcher-sales-figures-profit By contrast, EA's micro transaction business ONLY, made $267M in revenue as of last January: https://venturebeat.com/2017/01/31/ea-fifa-17-was-the-best-selling-console-title-in-the-world-in-2016/ TL;DR: Integrity gets you the house; selling out gets you the mansion.

That simply can't be the real reason since Nintendo do microtransactions as well with locking content on D1 behind amiibo paywalls, as well as up-front season passes. And the question is not whether you value amiibo (as certainly not everybody does), it's that on D1 you are not getting all the content without paying extra. What you pay for the game is the base experience, as ol' Jim would say. Developing games may get more expensive but far more people game as a hobby these days than they did in the past, so there is surely a bigger audience. And if games simply could no longer be produced without these sorts of tactics then how did Witcher 3 come to exist? The real reason is that they do it because the can, and because it's insanely profitable and pleases the shareholders.

I have also heard people praise lootboxes in games like Overwatch because they benefit from them on a personal level (e.g. "I don't buy the lootboxes, other people do and because of them spending money it means I get to enjoy future content for free"). It's fine for people who never buy a box, but on a more human level it isn't really, since a model dependent on what is essentially gambling and 'whales' isn't really ethical and leaves a bad taste.

Dragon Quest VIII is one of the best RPGs ever made. Just sayin'.

I guess to find out whether it's like the second game or not (and therefore whether really worth a preorder).

Not so, Bungie just reported that for Destiny 2 on console, over 50% of sales were digital. Physical is now falling behind, which is why you can't really take too much from just physical charts these days.

Having only played MH3U on 3DS to any large degree, reading about World sounds pretty cool. It sounds like they've addressed most of the bits of the game that felt outdated to bring it into the modern era. Couldn't be happier that it's departed handheld and coming to big consoles now. Saw this quote as well on Eurogamer by a staff member who has played 10 hours of World: Think this might be something special.

Well that's good. Good to hear it's faster selling than the 2D titles, which in recent years have felt more like stale cash grabs.

I have to agree that this is a good game but not great. I agree with a few comments I've seen about the game being easy. Well, not so much easy but, in my opinion, a lot of the things you have to do to earn moons are pretty trivial. They feel more or less like something you gradually accumulate without too much trouble while going through the level rather than being a huge driving force like in previous games. Stomping glowing spots on the ground for instance (literally one in a pile of rubbish in one of the levels). I can't help but feel this adds nothing and they would have done a better job having less moons but more meaningful ones. As a mechanic, taking control of things with your hat and even the feel of throwing the hat doesn't feel as good as controlling something like the FLUDD in previous games (which felt pretty darn good). Given controlling Mario has always been a highlight for me in these games, the over-reliance on this mechanic isn't super exciting to me. Overall I am enjoying the game but I don't feel compelled to play it every night, which is a shame. I was looking forward to a more open world take again but somehow this game feels like a similar, very polished game that has gone before but on a much bigger scale. Contrast this to Zelda which basically rewrote the rule book this year and left me very much wowed.

Just watched about 10 minutes of that trailer. This just seems like a really shit version of Animal Crossing, and clearly not something you'd consider if you have access to the real deal.

Given that this year has a new Zelda (and one of the best in nearly 20 years) and a critically acclaimed 3D Mario, it's hard to say "absolutely not" to this year to be honest! I do think Smash Melee is one of the best ever games though.

I agree that the "baseline" level of Mario is low (minimum number of stars required to advance to the next level), same with a lot of games with these checkpoints (e.g. musical notes in Banjo Kazooie). It's in the maximising and completitionism that the true difficulty often lies.

ResetEra eh? This guy. This fricking guy.

I wonder if this fixes the crackling sound on Stardew Valley.

You can also get a fiver free credit for topping up your Amazon account with £25. You can then apply that to an existing order. I did it and got another fiver off Mario Odyssey, effectively making it £35. Follow this link to see if you can get the fiver off.

If this place dies then surely there'll just be another place catering to hardcore gamers. Feels like when they banned certain torrent sites...more just popped up to take their place.

oh right cool, I thought it let you record 30 seconds from that point. Not so bad then, but I really hope they get moving with the cloud saves (these should definitely be here at least by the time paid online kicks in).

Nintendo doesn't believe in OS-level anything.

This is actually really disappointing...just 30 seconds of video capture and you have to manually trigger it, so no capturing anything neat that already happened. No cloud saves which is what is really needed, just a save transfer option which has niche applications. If this is a main numbered update I hate to think what the lesser updates will be like!

Can't really call it humble anymore can they.

How are people getting this 15 days before release?