Nintendo Switch paid online coming 2018

[Glen-i]

1 hour ago, Ronnie said:

AAA development, as a whole, hasn't become a scam. I didn't pay more than the asking price for Spider Man, Red Dead, Detroit, AC: Syndicate, God of War. I got the base game, I put 100 hours into them (or 50 in Spider Man's case) and had a great time. Those games' RRP, with their 100 hour campaigns full of content, are the same RRP as Super Nintendo games back in the day, with their 2 hour campaign you replayed over and over.

That's a really unfair comparison. First of all, I can count on one hand the SNES games I enjoy that last 2 hours. Secondly, you know that SNES games aren't technically capable of feats like the kind you see these days.

And you bring up a point that really bugs me about perceived conception about a game's quality, that length is somehow a key factor.

For me, that's more often a bad thing. It's all well and good having a huge world to explore, but if I'm spending half of my time just running around finding the next thing to actually do, then that's boring. It's big for the sake of being big.

A good game for me is one that is condensely packed so that there's little time where nothing is happening. Because if I'm doing nothing, why even bother?

Why spend hours upon hours running around in huge games like Breath of the Wild in the hopes of finding something to do, when I can slap on something like Bayonetta 2, choose a level and have some fun in an over-the-top silly action game? Games need to get to the point and time spent going to the next objective is not the point.

A long game isn't always worth your time.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure half of the games you just listed have some form of microtransactions. You can't claim it's a minority of games that have that issue when that minority are some of the biggest games stamping around these days.

[Ronnie]

5 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

Secondly, you know that SNES games aren't technically capable of feats like the kind you see these days.

I never said they were? But that makes no difference. We're getting far more bang for the same buck these days.

 

5 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

And you bring up a point that really bugs me about perceived conception about a game's quality, that length is somehow a key factor.

I never said length was a key factor in quality. Of course it isn't. Hell I'd RATHER play a 10 hour game than a 40 hour game. My point was just as above

 

5 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

Oh, and I'm pretty sure half of the games you just listed have some form of microtransactions. You can't claim it's a minority of games that have that issue when that minority are some of the biggest games stamping around these days.

Again, I never said the games I mentioned don't have some form of DLC or microtransactions. All I'm saying is the CORE content, the base game you pay £40 for is the vast majority of times, a quality, lengthy, feature packed experience. The same price as we paid for SNES games. I never once felt compelled to spend a penny more in any of the games I mentioned. If you love the game so much and you want more of it, then pay a bit extra. That helps fund these giant games with budgets 100x more than SNES games.

I adored Mario + Rabbids and had such a great time I was fully willing to pay extra for the DLC. Was it a scam? No. Did the base game not have enough content for £40? Definitely not.

All of this to illustrate my point that gaming is cheaper than it's ever been. 1) because games have more to them these days 2) because they're literally cheaper, when you adjust for inflation and 3) because: indies and smaller scale experiences

Edited February 2, 2019 by Ronnie

[Dcubed]

Those SNES games that “last 2 hours” are games that you will play countless times again and again, because their gameplay is honed to perfection.

 

I can beat SMW in less than an hour, but I have probably played it for more than 500 hours in total throughout my life because it is so incredibly replayable.

 

Today’s AAA games? They’re a One-and-Done affair, if even beaten the once.  Because they have no inherent replay value.

 

A game’s value is not measured by its runtime.

Edited February 2, 2019 by Dcubed

[Glen-i]

Just now, Ronnie said:

I adored Mario + Rabbids and had such a great time I was fully willing to pay extra for the DLC. Was it a scam? No. Did the base game not have enough content for £40? Definitely not.

DLC isn't the same as microtransactions.

My beef is with microtransactions. Which more than a few full price retail games are using.

[Ronnie]

3 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

A game’s value is not measured by its runtime.

I never said it was.

[Ronnie]

All of this is me responding to someone calling me a liar for saying that gaming is cheaper than it's ever been these days. Because it quite clearly is.

- 1. RRP is cheaper when adjusted for inflation
- 2. DLC and microtransactions are supplementary. The vast majority of times the base game has more than enough value for the cost.
- 3. The indie scene is thriving and giving us amazing games at £10, £15.

And most importantly that I haven't even brought up till now...

- 4. AAA games are more often than not sold at bargain basement prices a few months after release!! You can get Far Cry 5 for £25 on Amazon right now. Or Assassin's Creed Origins for £15. Dito Resident Evil 7.

So yeah, gaming is cheaper than it's ever been.

[Sheikah]

I mean... I've named 12 multiplatforms (because exclusives don't count apparently) games off the top of my head. You've managed to name... COD, FIFA and Battlefront. The base AC game has tons of content, likewise Far Cry. COD and FIFA are a completely different type of game, they rely on the casual market similar to how mobile gaming does. So not really "very easily. Very easily".

 

 

No, I named 5 at least EVERY year.

 

And games like Far Cry, please. If ever there was a game series that copy and pasted mission types over a massive fucking map, that’d be the one.

 

[Ronnie]

3 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

No, I named 5 at least EVERY year.

When one of your examples is Far Cry being a game that supposedly forces microtransactions on people, then yeah... you haven't a leg to stand on.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to order DOOM on PS4 for £8 from Amazon...

Edited February 2, 2019 by Ronnie

[Sheikah]

When one of your examples is Far Cry 5 as a game that supposedly forces microtransactions on people, then yeah... you haven't a leg to stand on.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to order DOOM on PS4 for £8 from Amazon...

Come on Ronnie. This is not just a discussion about the amount (or size) of game you get for your money but the quality of the game. I have plainly stated, among other things, that many AAA games have tricks to make seemingly “big” games, and content is often carved out for later.

 

Games like Far Cry, which you mention, rely on copy and pasting event types over a massive map. Compare that to an adventure game of old like OoT which is a finely crafted work with no two parts the same, there is no contest on which is giving you real value for money.

 

Here is a map from Creed Unity. Don’t tell me this does not fill you with at least a slight amount of horror.

 

[Mr-Paul]

I'm not going to wade into every point, because Dcubed, Sheikah and the likes have ably said what I would say. Just a couple of things though.

On 01/02/2019 at 6:41 PM, Ronnie said:

Ahh the usual entitled, "I want stuff for free!" gamer attitude. Standard.

You know that's not what I said so please don't use this shit argument. 

On 01/02/2019 at 6:41 PM, Ronnie said:

Yes it is. You're the one peddling a lie if you think the top line stuff is more expensive these days than back in the SNES or N64 days. Or maybe you've just never heard of the term inflation, and how it should have, but never did apply to the gaming industry.

Read my post again. I didn't say N64. I didn't say SNES. I said Gamecube, Wii and Wii U. 

On 01/02/2019 at 6:41 PM, Ronnie said:

Game's RRP is either the same as twenty years ago, or cheaper (go look up what N64 games used to cost), and yet modern games take 10x more development costs than they did back then. Now try and compare the actual amount of content you get from Ocarina of Time ($70), to Assassin's Creed Odyssey ($60). 

Game development costs being higher doesn't therefore make the games cheaper. You can't use a correlation between the two at all. A game isn't priced relative to its development cost. Just like a cinema ticket is the same price whether you see a film with a $50m budget or a $200m blockbuster. Game companies wouldn't invest the 10x number you've made up if they hadn't made a business decision that it will be profitable. EA can afford to pay their top executives $48m in a year and are milking it from micro-transactions. They don't NEED to charge so much for a game, and don't need to rake it in from extra DLC (which in lots of cases is made as part of the normal development and stripped out to sell later) and micro-transactions. They do it because they can.

I appreciate there is inflation to take into account, but to say it's cheaper than ever is not right.

[Dcubed]

14 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

Come on Ronnie. This is not just a discussion about the amount (or size) of game you get for your money but the quality of the game. I have plainly stated, among other things, that many AAA games have tricks to make seemingly “big” games, and content is often carved out for later.

 

Games like Far Cry, which you mention, rely on copy and pasting event types over a massive map. Compare that to an adventure game of old like OoT which is a finely crafted work with no two parts the same, there is no contest on which is giving you real value for money.

 

Here is a map from Creed Unity. Don’t tell me this does not fill you with at least a slight amount of horror.

 

Bingo bango done.

 

Again, you're getting far more production value for your money, but the actual gameplay itself? Virtually zilch.

 

The AAA sector has largely abandoned the idea of selling games based off of their gameplay.  Gameplay is now a tertiary concern at best.

 

These games sell on their visuals, story and perceived runtime.  They have all the gameplay depth of a dried up muddy puddle.  It doesn't matter if a game's runtime is artificially inflated by millions of copy/paste skinner boxes and BS wastes of time, that screenshot of AC Unity is a perfect representation of what constitutes "gameplay" and "value" in today's AAA games.

 

(And before you bother to highlight games like DOOM or the Resident Evil 2 remake; again, those are the rare exceptions to the norm that that AC Unity screenshot represents)

 

This is why we love Nintendo after all! They (mostly - I'm looking at YOU Breath of the Wild...) reject these modern trends, and continue to deliver real gameplay and gameplay value in their games!

Edited February 2, 2019 by Dcubed

[Ronnie]

30 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

Come on Ronnie. This is not just a discussion about the amount (or size) of game you get for your money but the quality of the game. I have plainly stated, among other things, that many AAA games have tricks to make seemingly “big” games, and content is often carved out for later.

I have no idea what we're discussing any more. My original point was that gaming has never been cheaper than it is today. You can try and argue about quality, but the truth is that's highly subjective, everyone has different tastes. So I'm trying to rely on facts. Games are packed full of content, with optional extras tacked on. You may decide you don't like that content, but that's a different matter.

33 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

Games like Far Cry, which you mention, rely on copy and pasting event types over a massive map. Compare that to an adventure game of old like OoT which is a finely crafted work with no two parts the same, there is no contest on which is giving you real value for money.

You know full well that critical path story missions in these sort of openworld games are just as finely crafted as Ocarina of Time. Yes there's copy and pasted stuff in terms of the optional tasks (a rung lower than Sidequests in most AAA games) but that's not really of much importance. Strip all of that out and you're still left with tons of high quality content, and why shouldn't you be when hundreds or thousands of people work on some of these games.

26 minutes ago, Mr-Paul said:

Read my post again. I didn't say N64. I didn't say SNES. I said Gamecube, Wii and Wii U. 

Switch games are more expensive than Wii U games? That's news to me. Gamecube games used to retail at $50, which is about the same now if adjusted for inflation.PS3 games were $60 back then too. And since we started talking about "gaming", point me to some indie games on Gamecube. Oh wait.

28 minutes ago, Mr-Paul said:

They don't NEED to charge so much for a game, and don't need to rake it in from extra DLC (which in lots of cases is made as part of the normal development and stripped out to sell later) and micro-transactions. They do it because they can.

So let me get this straight, you're saying that games shouldn't be the same RRP as they were thirty years ago (regardless of inflation)... you're saying they should be even less? Come on.

29 minutes ago, Mr-Paul said:

I appreciate there is inflation to take into account, but to say it's cheaper than ever is not right.

It is.

- Same RRP, with inflation, even cheaper than back in the day
- Game prices sink to crazy low prices very quickly. Wolfenstein 2 was £20 after a a month.
- Indies make up a huge segment of the industry and are usually £10-£15 games.

I know we're in the midst of a gamer revolution, where everyone grabs their pitchforks in their war against publishers, but the reality is, gaming has never been broader, and we're still paying the same retail prices we used to pay on the NES, at best.

[Ronnie]

39 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

Bingo bango done.

Again, you're getting far more production value for your money, but the actual gameplay itself? Virtually zilch.

Sorry, what's done? What does that pic prove exactly? That openworld games are packed full of things to do.

Ok.

What you personally think about AAA gaming doesn't really have anything to do with it. These games sell tremendous amounts so they're obviously valued by a lot of people. Can we get back to the actual discussion? That gaming has never been cheaper than it is today?

39 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

(And before you bother to highlight games like DOOM or the Resident Evil 2 remake; again, those are the rare exceptions to the norm that that AC Unity screenshot represents)

You seem to be missing the point. We're not talking about the quality of AAA gaming, we're talking about "the majority of games" supposedly nickel and diming gamers.

DOOM, Resident Evil 7, Resident Evil 2, Far Cry 5, Wolfentein New Collosus, Red Dead Redemption 2, Mass Effect Andromeda, Titanfall 2, Tomb Raider 1, 2, 3, Fallout 4, Just Cause, The Division, Final Fantasy 15, Just Cause 4, Metro Exodus, Dishonoured, Until Dawn, Witcher 3, Ace Combat 7, Mortal Kombat X, Dark Souls. The biggest AAA games this generation. Those are not "rare" exceptions. None of them force you to pay a penny more than the RRP, they're all feature complete games.

And that's not even mentioning ANY of the exclusives because Sheikah suggested they shouldn't count.

Edited February 3, 2019 by Ronnie

[Emerald Emblem]

34 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

None of them force you to pay a penny more than the RRP, they're all feature complete games.

Not entirely true. You pay base price for an incomplete game unless you buy the gold edition (Not forgetting the middle ground silver edition which honestly are pointless in my opinion) which can cost upwards of £90, some of the games you have listed do that, but even then you aren't getting the complete experience unless you buy the tiers of Special editions, Limited editions, Ultimate editions or some other named editions with cheap tat you don't want and those are entering £100+ territory. It's becoming an increasing common practice especially among the major 3rd party developers such as EA and Ubisoft to chop content out of their games so they can tempt people with more content to help shift these other editions of games. At least back in the day you paid a price and know you are getting the complete experience.

[Glen-i]

2 hours ago, Emerald Emblem said:

Not entirely true. You pay base price for an incomplete game unless you buy the gold edition (Not forgetting the middle ground silver edition which honestly are pointless in my opinion) which can cost upwards of £90, some of the games you have listed do that, but even then you aren't getting the complete experience unless you buy the tiers of Special editions, Limited editions, Ultimate editions or some other named editions with cheap tat you don't want and those are entering £100+ territory. It's becoming an increasing common practice especially among the major 3rd party developers such as EA and Ubisoft to chop content out of their games so they can tempt people with more content to help shift these other editions of games. At least back in the day you paid a price and know you are getting the complete experience.

Thanks for bringing up that point. I was kinda blinded by talking microtransactions that I almost forgot about the nonsense with special editions.

[bob]

Not entirely true. You pay base price for an incomplete game unless you buy the gold edition (Not forgetting the middle ground silver edition which honestly are pointless in my opinion) which can cost upwards of £90, some of the games you have listed do that, but even then you aren't getting the complete experience unless you buy the tiers of Special editions, Limited editions, Ultimate editions or some other named editions with cheap tat you don't want and those are entering £100+ territory. It's becoming an increasing common practice especially among the major 3rd party developers such as EA and Ubisoft to chop content out of their games so they can tempt people with more content to help shift these other editions of games. At least back in the day you paid a price and know you are getting the complete experience.

You can't say the base game is incomplete and then the special editions have a load of unwanted tat...

[Sheikah]

Sorry, what's done? What does that pic prove exactly? That openworld games are packed full of things to do. Ok.

 

Right, so to look at this image again...

Your reaction to this image is that it's great that this game is "packed full of things to do"?

Really? Do you honestly believe that?

That image is indicative of padding and lazy game design. VERY lazy game design. You can see that the icons are copies of each other, meaning that the team came up with a few ideas and repeated them, changing a few details each time. When I played these games I did not do more than one or two of each because they really are so repetitive that there is no sense to doing many of them. 

 

I'ma post your favourite dude again who goes into these issues in more detail:

 

 

DOOM, Resident Evil 7, Resident Evil 2, Far Cry 5, Wolfentein New Collosus, Red Dead Redemption 2, Mass Effect Andromeda, Titanfall 2, Tomb Raider 1, 2, 3, Fallout 4, Just Cause, The Division, Final Fantasy 15, Just Cause 4, Metro Exodus, Dishonoured, Until Dawn, Witcher 3, Ace Combat 7, Mortal Kombat X, Dark Souls. The biggest AAA games this generation. Those are not "rare" exceptions. None of them force you to pay a penny more than the RRP, they're all feature complete games. And that's not even mentioning ANY of the exclusives because Sheikah suggested they shouldn't count.

 

You realise how many big games have been released on PS4/X1 in the last 6 years? You also realise that your list contains games with the problems we have been talking about (e.g. Far Cry 5)? Games with copy-pasted padding of the game or generally uninspired gameplay choices, as well as microtransactions. 

Sorry, but your list doesn't mean very much.

 

 

[Ronnie]

40 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

Your reaction to this image is that it's great that this game is "packed full of things to do"?

Really? Do you honestly believe that?

We can start a separate conversation about how lazy non-Nintendo AAA gaming has become if you'd like. I'd be all for it. My point is, that isn't what the discussion is about.

No one cared about the microtransactions in Far Cry 5, because they weren't a big deal. For once gamers didn't grab their pitchforks from under their pillow.

Gaming in 2019 is cheaper than it's ever been. Fact.

*Maybe I'll order Uncharted 4 off Amazon for £14... or Wolfenstein 2 for £22*

Edited February 3, 2019 by Ronnie

[Mr-Paul]

9 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

Maybe I'll order Uncharted 4 off Amazon for £14... or Wolfenstein 2 for £22*

Maybe I'll order a 2 or 3 year old game for a bargain price... Oh wait. I can't do that on a Nintendo console as they (generally) don't reduce their prices any more. 

[Ronnie]

6 minutes ago, Mr-Paul said:

Maybe I'll order a 2 or 3 year old game for a bargain price... Oh wait. I can't do that on a Nintendo console as they (generally) don't reduce their prices any more.

Fear not! Today's £40 Nintendo game is cheaper than a £40 Nintendo game from 1990.

If you want a big AAA game from less than 12 months ago, Far Cry 5 is £25 on Amazon and Detroit Become Human is £22

Edited February 3, 2019 by Ronnie

[Sheikah]

 

 

 

 

 

We can start a separate conversation about how lazy non-Nintendo AAA gaming has become if you'd like. I'd be all for it. My point is, that isn't what the discussion is about. No one cared about the microtransactions in Far Cry 5, because they weren't a big deal. For once gamers didn't grab their pitchforks from under their pillow. Gaming in 2019 is cheaper than it's ever been. Fact.

*Maybe I'll order Uncharted 4 off Amazon for £14... or Wolfenstein 2 for £22*

 

It isn't though. The crisp packet has got bigger but there are fewer crisps inside.

 

You can't really say AAA gaming is generally cheaper these days when the offering isn't the same.

[Ronnie]

9 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

It isn't though. The crisp packet has got bigger but there are fewer crisps inside.

If you think there's fewer crisps in Castevania for NES or Goldeneye on N64 than God of War or COD of PS4 then there's no point arguing.

There are more games, a broader range of games, cheaper RRP, bargain bin prices shortly after release and a huge selection of amazing indie games for cheap. You can talk about quality, that's subjective, but price wise, cheaper than it's ever been.

[Sheikah]

You can't say the base game is incomplete and then the special editions have a load of unwanted tat...

Those extra costumes and things you get for paying more used to be included in the game.

This is exactly what I was referring to when I said they carve out content and you now get the base game for the standard cost. It also happens with extra missions and modes.

[Sheikah]

If you think there's fewer crisps in Castevania for NES or Goldeneye on N64 than God of War or COD of PS4 then there's no point arguing. There are more games, a broader range of games, cheaper RRP, bargain bin prices shortly after release and a huge selection of amazing indie games for cheap. You can talk about quality, that's subjective, but price wise, cheaper than it's ever been. 

 

I don't know why you keep returning to God of War since the game is not typical of your usual modern AAA title. It was made for a different purpose.

 

The crisp packet analogy works if you look at that AC Unity image, which by the way applies to the tens of Ubisoft games that follow this formula. The crisp packet (in this case the world map) has gotten bigger. But there are fewer crisps (worthwhile unique, crafted content) inside. So, so many big games these days rely on copied and pasted content, or a barebones game that requires extra money for content to make it a complete game (e.g. Battlefront). Or microtransactions to make gameplay progress at an enjoyable rate.

 

And you are not the first to fall for this in thinking you are getting this massive game without diminished quality, for less money. They rely on people like you.

 

Based on your comments it seems you feel AAA content is generally being developed and delivered in exactly the same way it always was (which is the only way we can interpret your argument given you are doing like for like comparison on costs between new and old AAA games). You can't say gaming is cheaper when you're not getting everything you used to get.

[Ronnie]

12 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

And you are not the first to fall for this in thinking you are getting this massive game without diminished quality, for less money. They rely on people like you.

Just as YouTubers like Jim Sterling rely on people like you. Crusading entitled gamers who say things like "fuck this game".

12 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

I am done explaining this to you now because in your eyes the AAA content is generally being developed and delivered in exactly the same way it always was

Let's be clear. You're not explaining anything to me. You're sharing and arguing your opinion with me.

You know full well that openworld games fill their maps with busywork and tasks and that all of that is a rung below Main Missions and Side Missions, which are tailor made and provide the meat of the experience. As games have gotten bigger in size, gameplay needs to scale to meet that. Strip away all of that "copied and pasted" content and you're still left with more game than what we had generations ago.

The crisp packet has gotten bigger, there's much, much more crisps in it, it's a cheaper packet... (and in some cases there's a few burnt tasting ones at the very bottom, ie. copied and pasted content like you say)

Edited February 3, 2019 by Ronnie