The End For Neogaf?

[Hero-of-Time]

2 hours ago, Nicktendo said:

I don't play PS4 / Xbox One but it makes me sad to see the current state of gaming on those platforms. Lootboxes, microtransactions, day one DLC etc. Seems like the players are more roundly getting fleeced because budgets are out of control, and mobile F2P methods of monetisation are being implemented in full price games to compensate. It's disgusting TBH, and I'm glad people like Jim and previously Colin are willing to call them out. I hope he continues to shine a focus on this. Colin Was Right was always an entertaining watch and a well researched passion project. 

I'm getting pretty sick of it to the point where I think whats the point of even playing anymore? While Nintendo don't seem to be as bad as other companies, stuff like the Xenoblade and Fire Emblem season pass being shoved down our throats before the games are even out shows that they are heading down a similar path. What's annoying is that I feel like i'm very much in the minority. The hobby that I loved has become nothing more than a cash cow for most of the people who are in power. A lot of the time it's not about creating something unique or artistic but more about how much money you can get out of a single person. It honestly feels very much like the way football has gone in recent years, where it's not about the joy of the game but more about seeing how much money can be made as a player or an owner of a club.

Due to all of the scummy practices seeping into gaming, i've been thinking about maybe just taking a step back from the current generation next year and revisiting some of the games that previous generations had to offer. Revisiting a time when gaming was far more simpler ( just stick the disc or cartridge in and start a fully finished game ) may offer the joy that seems to be missing from gaming these days.

2 hours ago, Nicktendo said:

I don't want to mix politics and games, hence why I'm almost exclusively and Nintendo gamer, I play games to chill out or have some fun, not to think about wider society or bigger questions as a whole.

I agree and this is my stance. To be fair, I don't mix politics with anything. I simply don't care what goes on in the world purely because those in power are pretty much all corrupt and liars. I tend to keep out of it. Ignorance is bliss.  All these different political opinions and messages that many are trying to force into their games or websites are irrelevant to me and i'd rather they stay separate.

2 hours ago, Nicktendo said:

I was firmly on the side of the people who criticised some reviewers and how bad they were at games. If you work for a gaming website, which could essentially be boiled down to consumer advice when it comes to reviews, you should be good at video games, experienced in video games and know what the hell you're talking about, in both technical terms and in terms of having experienced a solid back-catalogue of games you can draw on for comparison purposes. In most video games, though granted not all, mechanics are important, skill level is important, difficulty is a factor in overall enjoyment (especially in something like DOOM). To me it seems the most popular sites have become agenda driven and have started employing writers, who are undoubtedly skilled at writing, but probably don't share the same love and passion for gaming as say 99% of the users of this forum likely have. Almost as if they are writers first, gamers second.

Yeah, this really shows. You can tell when a gaming journalist is a very good writer but doesn't have the passion. I'm pretty much the other way around, I love gaming but i'm not that good at conveying my thoughts about a game i've just played. You look back at a lot of the old gaming magazines and the writing may not be great but the passion carries the articles. 

A big gripe of mine is that lot of sites now review games before even finishing them. I'm a big believer that a person should finish a game before reviewing it, even if they miss the embargo deadline. Easy Allies seem to do this and I respect them for it. It seems a lot of sites either rush the reviews or don't finish the game, just to get them out the door. This came up in a recent episode of Radio Free Nintendo where the guest they had on explained how he had to crank the game on easy and rush to the end. That is surely going to effect how you feel about the game. Rather than taking their time, getting through the game and then collecting their thoughts, the business side of things takes priority.

 

[Goron_3]

13 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

I'm getting pretty sick of it to the point where I think whats the point of even playing anymore? While Nintendo don't seem to be as bad as other companies, stuff like the Xenoblade and Fire Emblem season pass being shoved down our throats before the games are even out shows that they are heading down a similar path. What's annoying is that I feel like i'm very much in the minority. The hobby that I loved has become nothing more than a cash cow for most of the people who are in power. A lot of the time it's not about creating something unique or artistic but more about how much money you can get out of a single person. It honestly feels very much like the way football has gone in recent years, where it's not about the joy of the game but more about seeing how much money can be made as a player or an owner of a club.

Due to all of the scummy practices seeping into gaming, i've been thinking about maybe just taking a step back from the current generation next year and revisiting some of the games that previous generations had to offer. Revisiting a time when gaming was far more simpler ( just stick the disc or cartridge in and start a fully finished game ) may offer the joy that seems to be missing from gaming these days.

I agree and this is my stance. To be fair, I don't mix politics with anything. I simply don't care what goes on in the world purely because those in power are pretty much all corrupt and liars. I tend to keep out of it. Ignorance is bliss.  All these different political opinions and messages that many are trying to force into their games or websites are irrelevant to me and i'd rather they stay separate.

Yeah, this really shows. You can tell when a gaming journalist is a very good writer but doesn't have the passion. I'm pretty much the other way around, I love gaming but i'm not that good at conveying my thoughts about a game i've just played. You look back at a lot of the old gaming magazines and the writing may not be great but the passion carries the articles. 

A big gripe of mine is that lot of sites now review games before even finishing them. I'm a big believer that a person should finish a game before reviewing it, even if they miss the embargo deadline. Easy Allies seem to do this and I respect them for it. It seems a lot of sites either rush the reviews or don't finish the game, just to get them out the door. This came up in a recent episode of Radio Free Nintendo where the guest they had on explained how he had to crank the game on easy and rush to the end. That is surely going to effect how you feel about the game. Rather than taking their time, getting through the game and then collecting their thoughts, the business side of things takes priority.

 

It's been a long time since I've posted here but this post had me nodding along all the way.

Loot boxes and season passes. Absolute joke. There's nothing worse than developers skipping on content and then forcing players to pay for it, thus making even more money. I tend to avoid it all and game pretty much exclusively on Switch and occasionally PS4 (mainly single player games) but unfortunately it's clear that the people playing these games are happy enough with these new systems. Loot boxes won and are here to stay but thankfully I'm just ignoring them. When it comes to Nintendo, I just wish they would stop announcing DLC and season plans before the game is even out. 

Regarding journalists, I think a large part of the issue is that the industry is very reactive and not proactive. Major sites get a review copy and review the game in a small timeframe, which naturally elevates game scores because there is no time to properly form a subjective opinion about a game. Some of the best reviews and analysis of games come from people like Mark Brown and Matthewmatosis over at YouTube because they are actually taking their time to understand a games mechanics and its design, and not just rushing to get a five minute review out for launch day.

I also think this affects the players too. I've noticed a severe lack in understanding of game mechanics and design from gamers, but thankfully people like Mark Brown are doing a great job of educating people.

Oh. And Jim Stirling is the GOAT.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Goron_3

[Hero-of-Time]

Just now, Goron_3 said:

Some of the best reviews and analysis of games come from people like Mark Brown and Matthewmatosis over at YouTube because they are actually taking their time to understand a games mechanics and its design, and not just rushing to get a five minute review out for launch day.

Oh. And Jim Stirling is the GOAT.

Yup. I love these guys. Its people like this who deserve praise. They do amazing work and I wish more of the bigger sites would follow in their footsteps.

Jim is amazing. Sure, he's loud and vulgar but the points he makes are spot on. It's crazy how accurate he is with a lot of his warnings. 

4 minutes ago, Goron_3 said:

Loot boxes and season passes. Absolutely joke. There's nothing worse than developers skipping on content and then forcing players to pay for it, thus making even more money. I tend to avoid it all and game pretty much exclusively on Switch and occasionally PS4 (mainly single player games) but unfortunately it's clear that the people playing these games are happy enough with these new systems. Loot boxes won and are here to stay but thankfully I'm just ignoring them. When it comes to Nintendo, I just wish they would stop announcing DLC and season plans before the game is even out. 

Yup and it's very upsetting. It's crazy to think that people are happy to support these practices. What's even crazier is people watching other people opening loot boxes is a thing. It's baffling.

A mate of mine at work plays loads of FIFA and, even though he doesn't pay real money for the coins, he still enjoys Ultimate Team. He was saying that he was on the Ultimate Team FIFA forums the other day and some guy was saying how he spent £720 on day one of FIFA 18  to get himself the best team he could. Sadly, these are the types of people who are shaping the industry, not those of us who standing our ground and voting with our wallets.  

[drahkon]

44 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

I'm getting pretty sick of it to the point where I think whats the point of even playing anymore? While Nintendo don't seem to be as bad as other companies, stuff like the Xenoblade and Fire Emblem season pass being shoved down our throats before the games are even out shows that they are heading down a similar path.

I know I might get some heated responses but to be honest...Nintendo is almost as bad. To me amiibo is only slightly less shitty than microtransactions in other games. The only thing amiibo have going for them is that they can be used with several games.

And seeing season passes in Nintendo games makes me sad.

46 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

Due to all of the scummy practices seeping into gaming, i've been thinking about maybe just taking a step back from the current generation next year and revisiting some of the games that previous generations had to offer. Revisiting a time when gaming was far more simpler ( just stick the disc or cartridge in and start a fully finished game ) may offer the joy that seems to be missing from gaming these days.

I had the same thought. In recent months I've only paid full price for one game (Destiny 2). The others have been bought second hand or during a sale. And I don't regret it. I had a lot of fun (even with games that include microtransactions) but as you said:

48 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

It honestly feels very much like the way football has gone in recent years, where it's not about the joy of the game but more about seeing how much money can be made as a player or an owner of a club.

A lot of games just don't feel like they are made with the thought in mind to bring joy to gamers. With many games I've played this year it felt like it was me who had to change how I play a game to make it fun, instead of the game just being fun on its own...if that makes any sense...it's difficult for me to describe these thoughts in English.

The absolute most fun I've had in recent years was with Titanfall 2. The campaign was brilliant and with every mechanic I could feel how the developers intended it to be fun. Fun to play, fun to experience, fun to get wrecked on higher difficulties, fun to wreck on the easiest difficulty. Everything was enjoyable from start to finish. It's sad that this has become a rarity.

Then there's Destiny 2. What I've played I've enjoyed. The shooting is great, the campaign was cool, but everything else...it was simply a matter of: Can I make it work? Can I get enough people together to take on the Raid? Can I manage to get this one weapon even though I don't need it? I set out goals for myself which isn't necessarily a bad thing but when you had to keep doing this for years now...it's getting stale.

However, if a game is particularly great I do like setting out goals/create challenges. Most of the time this only happens with classics, though...

I'm anticipating the relase of the next 8Bitdo controller so I can finally put my Raspberry Pi to good use. I've also set up my SNES again and played through DKC and Super Mario World...the good old times.

[Sheikah]

36 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

Yup. I love these guys. Its people like this who deserve praise. They do amazing work and I wish more of the bigger sites would follow in their footsteps.

Jim is amazing. Sure, he's loud and vulgar but the points he makes are spot on. It's crazy how accurate he is with a lot of his warnings. 

Yup and it's very upsetting. It's crazy to think that people are happy to support these practices. What's even crazier is people watching other people opening loot boxes is a thing. It's baffling.

A mate of mine at work plays loads of FIFA and, even though he doesn't pay real money for the coins, he still enjoys Ultimate Team. He was saying that he was on the Ultimate Team FIFA forums the other day and some guy was saying how he spent £720 on day one of FIFA 18  to get himself the best team he could. Sadly, these are the types of people who are shaping the industry, not those of us who standing our ground and voting with our wallets.  

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.

[Ganepark32]

(I've written this up quickly in work so it may not capture exactly what I was trying to convey on the subject but it generally covers my thoughts on things in the industry right now, sorry for the long read tho):

I have to agree that the industry, from publishers/developers to game journalists to gamers themselves, is in a bit of a state and it’s disheartening to see something that I’ve not only invested a lot of time in over my paltry life but also been part of on the journalist front years back. On the publishers/developers side of things, there seems to be an air of arrogance pervading development and as has been said, the push to bring in as much money per head is something that is detrimental to the industry. It’s a disgusting practice, especially when you consider that some of the things being put behind the pay walls are things that only a decade ago you would get for simply playing the game. Sure, in instances like Star Wars, Fifa, Overwatch, et al., you can get the things behind the pay wall but the amount of play time that has to be invested is grossly disproportionate to what would have been there years ago. No developer can justify the need to spend 40-odd hours grinding out Credits to unlock something that would have been unlocked through normal play years ago.

The sooner the mentality is scrubbed, and only will this happen if gamers start voting with their wallets, the better for the industry. Developers and publishers will begin to look at what they’re doing and revise development to reduce costs. Issues of publishers letting dev teams go at ideas which just won’t work or that they can bring out of conceptualisation need to get sorted. If they were, the issues of Bioware having to bring together Mass Effect Andromeda in 18months might not have happened and we might have had a better game out of it with the prospect of more entries to come (I will say I did enjoy the game for what it was though and not getting to experience more of it in single player expansions sucks).

Some of the things indie devs are doing on shoe-string budgets is amazing, with some unique art styles and ideas coming out and it’s this that should be getting fostered by publishers not the current mentality.

Recently I have started thinking about getting back into doing game reviews (even going so far as to mock write out things for a blog which I quickly abandoned) but the rise of Youtubers and the want for something short and untechnical  that ends in a simple score has kind of put me off. When I did reviews, I never got sent anything to review from the big developers or if I did, it was after the release and so that rush to get a review out there was never in mind. Giving a solid account of what was on the disc/cart was what was important to me and even when sent stuff early, the same process was in mind. Getting something out to be the first review for something or whatever never crossed my mind and it really shouldn’t for any reviewer. I sat through some truly awful games when reviewing in the Wii/DS days yet I always tried to get the most out of the game and always finished them before putting my final thoughts together. I find it particularly troubling that reviewers, industry wide, rarely do this now, with a handful of exceptions.

Seeing some sites say they refrained from sending people out to Activision’s review outing for the new Call of Duty was refreshing but unless it’s accepted on a wider scale, it does little to change the mentality of gamers who, more often than not, have made their mind up about a game and simply want to have that opinion justified by a score. Reading reviews nowadays give little insight into how the game feels and I was struck by this more because I was rewatching Easy Allies GOTY Awards 2016 video while thinking about the games that’ve stood out for me this year. Hearing them talk about the games and how it felt to play them was amazing and finding that I’d had a similar experience, such as in the case of The Last Guardian that despite problems was an incredible game, was awesome. Reviews are missing that.

Gamers themselves are also causing some of the issue though. Whether it’s a younger gamer thing or because people are becoming jaded, the attitude giving to many smaller titles these days is sometime disgusting. I’ve even seen people calling out the likes of Horizon Zero Dawn for being, and I quote, a “boring, repetitive dodging simulator”. The on-going discussions around the web about how game characters are ugly, when it’s a game character, is also something alarming, as though how the main character looks should influence whether we play something or not.

And as we’ve seen recently with HouseMarque dropping the arcade game genre because people are waiting for their games to appear on PS+, a large proportion of gamers seem to feel they are owed something simply by having the console and paying out for online access. The amount of moaning I’ve seen, whether on GameFaqs, the Playstation Blog or elsewhere, about when the next lot of PS+/Games with Gold titles are going to be announced or when they’re made available, is shocking and I honestly don’t see how that mentality can be changed. It really is disheartening to see this pervasive mentality across message boards and in comments on articles on websites.

I really don’t know how it’ll change but something has to give. For me, I’m still enjoying playing games though I’ve found myself not gelling with games I should have and this has been happening more and more recently. The current trends are nixing my enjoyment of games a bit but unique and interesting ideas and great stories (Horizon, Night in the Woods, Life is Strange, etc.) are keeping me going so for me, it’s about voting with my wallet, finding those games that try something different and even if I don’t ultimately enjoy the experience, not ripping into it as seems to be the want of many a gamer these days.

[Ronnie]

The main problems is, in Playstation 4 and Xbox One's manic push to high fidelity 4K gaming, games have just become insanely expensive to make. All the while, the RRP of games is the cheapest they've ever been. It makes no sense and it's the reason we're seeing big publishers hamper games in such an egregious way.

The way I see it there are three options:

1) Make games more expensive
2) Embrace lootboxes, season passes, DLC, the games as service formula
3) Lower the visual fidelity and scope of games

Option 2 is a less in your face way of doing option 1. Option 3 will never happen.

Jason Schreirer over at Kotaku wrote a great piece about how the AAA industry is unsustainable in its current form, and it's hard to disagree.

11 minutes ago, drahkon said:

I know I might get some heated responses but to be honest...Nintendo is almost as bad. To me amiibo is only slightly less shitty than microtransactions in other games. The only thing amiibo have going for them is that they can be used with several games.

amiibo are physical objects that you can own forever, and even if they didn't have any in-game unlocks would be worth the £12 or whatever they're selling for. The fact that one amiibo can be used in 20-30 different games is also a huge factor to consider. So no, Nintendo are most certainly not almost as bad.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Ronnie

[Sheikah]

13 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

The main problems is, in Playstation 4 and Xbox One's manic push to high fidelity 4K gaming, games have just become insanely expensive to make. All the while, the RRP of games is the cheapest they've ever been. It makes no sense and it's the reason we're seeing big publishers hamper games in such an egregious way.

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.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Sheikah

[Ronnie]

10 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

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.

Locking content with day 1 paywalls like racing costumes in MK8 and chests with fish in them in Zelda?

Quote

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?

More people game as a hobby, are you sure? The PS2 sold 150 million. Mario 64 sold 12 million units. The market isn't that much bigger, especially with the advent of mobile gaming.

Witcher 3 sold an insane number of copies, making up it's huge development cost. You hear all the time about how a game needs to sell X million copies or else it's considered a failure.

Quote

The real reason is that they do it because the can, and because it's insanely profitable and pleases the shareholders.

That's incredibly naive. I'm not sure how you can't accept that high fidelity games like AC: Origins or Battlefront II with hundreds of people working on them and eye watering budgets don't mesh with spending the same amount of money we did for NES games. £40 which by the way, will be knocked down to £20 after a few months. Publishers needs to get more money from people to fund these massive games, and ways to do that include microtransactions.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Ronnie

[Nolan]

24 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

The main problems is, in Playstation 4 and Xbox One's manic push to high fidelity 4K gaming, games have just become insanely expensive to make. All the while, the RRP of games is the cheapest they've ever been. It makes no sense and it's the reason we're seeing big publishers hamper games in such an egregious way.

The way I see it there are three options:

1) Make games more expensive
2) Embrace lootboxes, season passes, DLC, the games as service formula
3) Lower the visual fidelity and scope of games

Option 2 is a less in your face way of doing option 1. Option 3 will never happen.

Jason Schreirer over at Kotaku wrote a great piece about how the AAA industry is unsustainable in its current form, and it's hard to disagree.

amiibo are physical objects that you can own forever, and even if they didn't have any in-game unlocks would be worth the £12 or whatever they're selling for. The fact that one amiibo can be used in 20-30 different games is also a huge factor to consider. So no, Nintendo are most certainly not almost as bad.

Bullshit. You can’t put this on PS4 and Xbox Ones push for 4K. Game development cost has been skyrocketing for the past decade since the advent of HD consoles. 

Regardless though, it’s still bullshit to blame the console makers. Publishers are the ones pushing bigger and bigger budgets that simply are unsustainable. They need to know their market and budget appropriately. Look at Hellblade, no publisher and a budget within reason. Gorgeous and well made game released at a low budget price, they made enough sales to turn a profit around 3 months ahead of projections. 

Not every game needs a 100 million budget. 

 

And Amiibo are absolutely dlc. 

[Ronnie]

7 minutes ago, Nolan said:

Bullshit. You can’t put this on PS4 and Xbox Ones push for 4K. Game development cost has been skyrocketing for the past decade since the advent of HD consoles. 

Yes, that's exactly my point? I didn't mean specifically the push for 4K, more Playstation and Xbox pushing power with each gen. And I'm not blaming them, obviously graphics will increase with each gen and costs will rocket because of it.
 

Quote

 

Regardless though, it’s still bullshit to blame the console makers. Publishers are the ones pushing bigger and bigger budgets that simply are unsustainable. They need to know their market and budget appropriately. Look at Hellblade, no publisher and a budget within reason. Gorgeous and well made game released at a low budget price, they made enough sales to turn a profit around 3 months ahead of projections. 

Not every game needs a 100 million budget. 

 

Great, so you're advocating my third option then, lower budgets and scope for AAA games to make them profitable again and cut out the need for microtransactions and games as service taking over.

Quote

And Amiibo are absolutely dlc. 

No, amiibo are plastic figurines for a tenner, that just so happen to unlock (mostly cosmetic) minor content in a huge number of games, collectively. I suspect if you ask a hundred amiibo owners why they by them, ninety will tell you "to have a cool little figurine on my shelf". I'm not saying Nintendo don't do industry wise things like season passes or DLC, but they're a footnote in the conversation.

[Sheikah]

33 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

Locking content with day 1 paywalls like racing costumes in MK8 and chests with fish in them in Zelda?

More people game as a hobby, are you sure? The PS2 sold 150 million. Mario 64 sold 12 million units. The market isn't that much bigger, especially with the advent of mobile gaming.

Witcher 3 sold an insane number of copies, making up it's huge development cost. You hear all the time about how a game needs to sell X million copies or else it's considered a failure.

That's incredibly naive. I'm not sure how you can't accept that high fidelity games like AC: Origins or Battlefront II with hundreds of people working on them and eye watering budgets don't mesh with spending the same amount of money we did for NES games. £40 which by the way, will be knocked down to £20 after a few months.

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.

Edited November 14, 2017 by Sheikah

[Goron_3]

It's good to see people passionate about this, so thanks for the replies @Sheikah and @Ronnie

With regards to costs, the HD era from the mid-00's onwards is what made costs escalate, because games needed more staff and more advanced tools. 4K doesn't make too much of a difference at the moment as there are no 4K exclusive games - they are just games that run on PS4 and XBO that are then beefed up to higher settings. Downporting to the Switch from a PS4 is actually where the additional cost would come from for a port as you need allocate more staff members entirely to the project (or in most cases, pay a completely separate set of developers to work on it).

The cost of games has steadily risen over the years (I'm not sure how this compares against inflation and the national living wage) but the main issue from my point of view is simple:

1. The audience is willing to invest in games that have pay walls (whether that's DLC, loot boxes etc) and so developers are actively chasing this market to make more $$$

2. Developers want to succeed in this market and haven't yet found out what the saturation limit is. Eventually we'll hit a point where franchises just die out completely and there'll be a few survivors raking in all the dough, but for the EA's and Activision's of the world, it's worth the risk as they stand to make big profits. 

The biggest disappointment for me though is that it's led to the loss of single player AAA titles. Jim Stirling has spoken about this in great length but it's a real issue, as developers expect games like Dead Space to do unrealistic numbers. There needs to be a more effective way of releasing AAA/AA games at a cheaper price point to keep franchises alive and profitable.

The industry and audience have changed.

 

[Ashley]

Also worth considering the AAA industry is slowly (too slowly) adjusting their working practices to benefit their employees and that will have an impact on their bottom line and thus they'll be looking elsewhere.  I can't for the life of me remember where I saw it* but will try and dig it out, but they are slowly starting to encourage less general overtime, less crunch and to pay for overtime (It's still a measly percent that are, but its changing).  The industry has relied on people breaking their backs and young people trying to prove themselves and now it is changing ever so slightly so they will be getting less free productivity they can utilise.

*It was something marking 10 years since the EA Spouse blog post, but my Google-Fu is failing me.

[Ike]

 

5 hours ago, Hero-of-Time said:

I'm getting pretty sick of it to the point where I think whats the point of even playing anymore? While Nintendo don't seem to be as bad as other companies, stuff like the Xenoblade and Fire Emblem season pass being shoved down our throats before the games are even out shows that they are heading down a similar path.

 

4 hours ago, drahkon said:

I know I might get some heated responses but to be honest...Nintendo is almost as bad. To me amiibo is only slightly less shitty than microtransactions in other games. The only thing amiibo have going for them is that they can be used with several games.

And seeing season passes in Nintendo games makes me sad.

To be fair, Nintendo's DLC does tend to be fairly substantial most of the time and they do tend to say what's coming in the season pass so it's not like you are buying it blind. BoTW's was a bit vague but that's probably because developement wasn't done. Was it Injustice on the Wii U were they ended up refunding people because they didn't release as much content for the Wii U version?

I think the Fire Emblem Warriors Limited Edition should have included the season pass though.

With Amiibo, I think the only thing substantial they locked content with was Fusion Mode in Samus Returns. They could have at least done an update a month after release to unlock it, or put in some cheat code (remember those?).

We're at a point where new people playing games will be more used to DLC/Microtransaction because of mobile gaming, where older players are used to having everything on the cart.

[drahkon]

I consider any kind of microtransaction, be it cosmetic only or game changing, shitty. And that's why Nintendo, in my opinion, is almost as bad as all the other devs who do this. As long as Nintendo doesn't include a mechanic that enables gambling (i.e. loot boxes) to kids they are slightly better

 

And with a lot of DLC I don't have much of a problem. Most of the DLC I have bought was well worth the money I spent. I do, however, get all the information I need to gauge whether I should buy it or not before I actually make the purchase.

Edited November 14, 2017 by drahkon

[Ronnie]

7 hours ago, drahkon said:

I consider any kind of microtransaction, be it cosmetic only or game changing, shitty. And that's why Nintendo, in my opinion, is almost as bad as all the other devs who do this. As long as Nintendo doesn't include a mechanic that enables gambling (i.e. loot boxes) to kids they are slightly better

So never mind actually taking a moment to assess context, degree and implementation and then form an opinion based on those things, you just apply a one size fits all verdict. Interesting.

[Nolan]

11 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

So never mind actually taking a moment to assess context, degree and implementation and then form an opinion based on those things, you just apply a one size fits all verdict. Interesting.

Well, I can’t think of a game yet that has benefited from microtransactions. And I mean the game itself benefiting, not just the developers or publishers. So I’d say that his verdict does indeed fit all. 

[Ronnie]

11 hours ago, Sheikah said:

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?

I'd completely forgotten about Splatoon, mostly because I can barely remember what the amiibo offered. But ok, Splatoon. I can mention another dozen games that barely offered anything apart from cosmetic stuff. My point is the MAJORITY of amiibo unlocks are for minor things.

 

11 hours ago, Sheikah said:

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?

Witcher 3 is a single player game, and had two big DLC expansions.

11 hours ago, Sheikah said:

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?

I absolutely do think they need to do it.

It's a very simple concept and I can't quite understand why you fail to grasp it.

AAA game RRP is the cheapest it's ever been, and development costs are the highest they've ever been. Publishers need to charge more to pay for games, but instead of raising the RRP they find alternate ways to make money: DLC and microtransactions. Gamers either play a game once then trade it so the publisher loses any additional sales, or they wait a couple of months for a big PS4 game to be sold at a bargain price, thus losing even more money.

[Ronnie]

1 minute ago, Nolan said:

Well, I can’t think of a game yet that has benefited from microtransactions. And I mean the game itself benefiting, not just the developers or publishers. So I’d say that his verdict does indeed fit all. 

So Mii racing costumes in Mario Kart 8 should be bundled in with all the shitty stuff in Battlefront 2 that actually holds back progression? That's a very ignorant way of looking at things.

[Nolan]

1 hour ago, Ronnie said:

So Mii racing costumes in Mario Kart 8 should be bundled in with all the shitty stuff in Battlefront 2 that actually holds back progression? That's a very ignorant way of looking at things.

Does it benefit the game? No? Then it isn’t something that should be charged for, and sets poor precedent for our hobby. 

 

One of my favorite games used to be Team Fortress 2. About the time I quit playing was when they began adding in Hats and Crafting and loot boxes, and becoming free to play. Those additions were actively detrimental to most servers because of how obsessed people became. Add in Steam marketplace and people are buying and selling this shit....

It was sort of the beginning of publishers figuring out how to fleece consumers with cosmetic shit. They realized they needed some finesse and couldn’t just do Bethesda Horse Armor. Microtransactions have evolved and worked into games and twisted our perception. People just aren’t in it for the long fight. What once caused outrage doesn’t get a response. So they add more and go further. That’s all EA did, pushed the bounds a little and saw the current limit. In a few years it’ll be the norm, people won’t have the energy to care to be mad about a $60 pay to win situation. 

And your fucking Mii costumes are a part of that scheme no matter how harmless. Pretending they aren’t is what is ignorant. If you like them fine, if you buy them good for you and great for the publisher. 

[Hero-of-Time]

Wow. Lots of interesting responses in here. I've no idea where to start.

17 hours ago, drahkon said:

A lot of games just don't feel like they are made with the thought in mind to bring joy to gamers. With many games I've played this year it felt like it was me who had to change how I play a game to make it fun, instead of the game just being fun on its own...if that makes any sense...it's difficult for me to describe these thoughts in English.

The absolute most fun I've had in recent years was with Titanfall 2. The campaign was brilliant and with every mechanic I could feel how the developers intended it to be fun. Fun to play, fun to experience, fun to get wrecked on higher difficulties, fun to wreck on the easiest difficulty. Everything was enjoyable from start to finish. It's sad that this has become a rarity.

Then there's Destiny 2. What I've played I've enjoyed. The shooting is great, the campaign was cool, but everything else...it was simply a matter of: Can I make it work? Can I get enough people together to take on the Raid? Can I manage to get this one weapon even though I don't need it? I set out goals for myself which isn't necessarily a bad thing but when you had to keep doing this for years now...it's getting stale.

I know what you mean. You described it well.

I enjoyed the campaign for Destiny 2 ( wasn't a patch of Titanfall 2 campaign though ) and I agree with everything else who said. To be fair, I have no one to blame but myself when it comes to Destiny 2. I should never had bought it. It seemed to be just more of the same and, just like the original game, I got bored of it very quickly.

I play a lot of games and do enjoy most of them but very few bring me a true sense of joy. Off the top of my head only 2 have managed to bring me that feeling and those were Mario & Rabbids and Mario Odyssey. Both games nailed their core mechanics and the games were a delight to play. Both 10/10 in my eyes.

17 hours ago, Sheikah said:

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.

I've always been able to justify buy games with loot boxes. I say to myself " I'm not buying them so it really doesn't effect me " but that really isn't the case. As soon as I bought the game, regardless if I spent money on the microtransactions or not, i'm still supporting what they are doing by giving them money. I think I need to take a look at what purchases I am making and how it could effect the industry as a whole. While I may miss out on games I would genuinely like to play, its not as if they is a shortage of other games to play.

@Ganepark32 nothing really to add to your post other than it's a cracking one. Well said.

16 hours ago, Nolan said:

Publishers are the ones pushing bigger and bigger budgets that simply are unsustainable. They need to know their market and budget appropriately. Look at Hellblade, no publisher and a budget within reason. Gorgeous and well made game released at a low budget price, they made enough sales to turn a profit around 3 months ahead of projections. 

Not every game needs a 100 million budget. 

The big publishers are the ones that push for higher specs and the console makers are happy to accommodate them to keep them happy and on board. I remember reading an article a while back now about how much pull the big publishers have and how many of them keep requesting that they have more to make bigger games. I was listening to a podcast recently ( think it was an episode of EZA ) and they were discussing the death of the AA developer. It was suggested that the likes of EA pushed for higher spec consoles in an effort to kill off their competition. There are very few publishers who would have been able to keep up with the rise of development costs and as such many would die out, leaving only the likes of EA to mop up. This is pretty much what has happened over the past 2 generations.

I totally agree that not every game needs a stupidly high budget. Publishers really need to get their expectations in check. If a game can't turn a profit even after something like 4 million sales then there is something seriously wrong with how they've gone about making and advertising the game. 

15 hours ago, Goron_3 said:

The biggest disappointment for me though is that it's led to the loss of single player AAA titles. Jim Stirling has spoken about this in great length but it's a real issue, as developers expect games like Dead Space to do unrealistic numbers. There needs to be a more effective way of releasing AAA/AA games at a cheaper price point to keep franchises alive and profitable.

The industry and audience have changed.

 

Yeah, this is a big loss for me, as well. It saddens me to read how a lot of the big publishers are now chasing the GaaS model. The mobile market has a lot to answer when it comes to how the industry has changed.

13 hours ago, Ike said:

To be fair, Nintendo's DLC does tend to be fairly substantial most of the time and they do tend to say what's coming in the season pass so it's not like you are buying it blind. BoTW's was a bit vague but that's probably because developement wasn't done. Was it Injustice on the Wii U were they ended up refunding people because they didn't release as much content for the Wii U version?

I think the Fire Emblem Warriors Limited Edition should have included the season pass though.

With Amiibo, I think the only thing substantial they locked content with was Fusion Mode in Samus Returns. They could have at least done an update a month after release to unlock it, or put in some cheat code (remember those?).

Yeah, the BotW season pass was pretty vague and it's something i'm not a fan of. If a company is going to advertise and then sell the pass right out of the gate then they should have to tell the consumer what exactly they are getting. Saying stuff like more story content doesn't really tell me anything. Is it to be set before the main story? After? How long will it be? It's all up in the air but they are quite happy to still sell it to people. They've also been pretty vague about the Xenoblade 2 DLC.

I think it was Batman Origins on the Wii U that forced Warner Bros. in to refunding people due to the cancelled DLC.

With Amiibo I always come back to Splatoon ( as already mentioned here ) as a fair bit of substantial content being locked behind the figure.

Seeing as i've commented on amiibo, I may as well say a few more things about them, as others seem to be discussing the subject.

I think amiibo have other issues as well. Many don't want the clutter but would like the costume or item the figure dishes out. Said person is then forced to pay for a piece of plastic that they don't want. The stock issues for amiibo is still a thing. If you did want the content that the figure unlocks but they happen to be a popular character then you may be out of luck and have to either wait months for it to get a reprint or pay a scalper on Ebay. 

The implementation of amiibo isn't as innocent as people may think. Just look at something like Mario Kart. The game shows you exactly which costumes you have unlocked but also shows you which ones you haven't. It essentially creates an in game checklist system which is the kind of thing that can trigger or manipulate people into buying the other amiibo just so that they have a screen that is 100% complete.

13 hours ago, drahkon said:

I consider any kind of microtransaction, be it cosmetic only or game changing, shitty. And that's why Nintendo, in my opinion, is almost as bad as all the other devs who do this. As long as Nintendo doesn't include a mechanic that enables gambling (i.e. loot boxes) to kids they are slightly better

 

It could be argued that they've already signed off on such practices. Fire Emblem Heroes is a gatcha game. Granted, it's a mobile game and the market is a very different beast but it does go to show you that they have no issue with these kind of things being in games that use their IPs. It's going to be interesting to see just how far they go with this kind of thing once Animal Crossing Pocket Camp arrives.

[Sheikah]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I absolutely do think they need to do it. It's a very simple concept and I can't quite understand why you fail to grasp it. AAA game RRP is the cheapest it's ever been, and development costs are the highest they've ever been.  

 

 

 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?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hero-of-Time]

13 hours ago, Ashley said:

Also worth considering the AAA industry is slowly (too slowly) adjusting their working practices to benefit their employees and that will have an impact on their bottom line and thus they'll be looking elsewhere.  I can't for the life of me remember where I saw it* but will try and dig it out, but they are slowly starting to encourage less general overtime, less crunch and to pay for overtime (It's still a measly percent that are, but its changing).  The industry has relied on people breaking their backs and young people trying to prove themselves and now it is changing ever so slightly so they will be getting less free productivity they can utilise.

Strangely enough, i've just read this article this morning.

http://www.usgamer.net/articles/exclusive-how-a-culture-of-crunch-brought-telltale-from-critical-darlings-to-layoffs

It shows how having these kind of working conditions can be detrimental to your overall business...as if that needed pointing out.

This quote from the article says it all really and highlights how I imagine many gaming companies are ran.

Quote

One source told USGamer that, "At one point, there was a quote (printed on paper) on one of the creative director's doors that read something to the tune of, 'It's not about how much time you need to make a good game, it's about how good of a game you can make with the time you have.'" Several other sources confirmed they had also seen this sign.

 

[Jimbob]

The number of season passes available for games is stupid.  And more so, the price of them and the content offered.  Looking at games like DriveClub and Witcher 3, both offered similar priced season passes and threw in so much content it was unreal.  Then you look at games like Arkham Knight, which offered a £40 season pass and content which was extremely poor.  In terms of games offering loot boxes and microtransactions, well them costs for producing games needs to be covered.  And as much as i really dislike the idea of them altogether (in fact, i avoid games that have this "pay to win" idea (Battlefront II)

Just looking at Battlefront II for a moment, i was watching some YouTuber's really rip into EA for doing what they are doing.  If you don't get any loot crates, to unlock Darth Vader or Luke Skywalker it's about 40 hours of gameplay, then another 40 or so to power them up.  Then they had that starcard situation, basically EA just ruined the game.  And it led to the most disliked Reddit post for quite some time (if all time).

This isn't limited to what companies like EA and Warner Bros do (and games like Destiny 2, all of which appear on Xbox, PC and PS4).  Nintendo are getting them with these Amiibo.  Locking a difficulty mode behind a £15 piece of plastic isn't a good idea, and it's one reason i'm not buying Samus Returns.