The End For Neogaf?

[drahkon]

2 hours ago, Hero-of-Time said:

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.

Never played Fire Emblem Heroes so I didn't know that. Well...they become shittier each day

I'm very interested to see what the AC mobile game will be like. I fear the worst.

[Goron_3]

3 hours ago, Sheikah said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 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?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well put.

And yes, gaming has never been so expensive. The cost of a AAA title at launch now is absolutely ridiculous. Even when the HD era started you could get a new game for £30 and it was the complete experience from day one. 

[bob]

I see what Ronnie is saying. Back in 1996, it cost £50 to buy Mario 64 (and many other games).

Adjusted for inflation, that is £83. So games are generally getting cheaper, but the cost of production will go up.

[Sheikah]

27 minutes ago, bob said:

I see what Ronnie is saying. Back in 1996, it cost £50 to buy Mario 64 (and many other games).

Adjusted for inflation, that is £83. So games are generally getting cheaper, but the cost of production will go up.

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.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Sheikah

[dazzybee]

I paid £60 for Mortal Kombat 2 on the SNES. prices for full price releases are relatively cheaper, that's fact. Now the argument about "base" product is interesting, is the base product of Mario Kart 8 weaker than previous entries which is then being moved to DLC? I don't think so; I don't know the full spectrum of DLC on most games, I presume it is EXTRA content though and not cut content. That's a debate I guess; but gaming is cheaper for us then it has ever been. Never mind the fact that so many digital games would've been full price in previous generations (look at Stardew valley, picos, rocket league etc).

Not going to get involved in the Nintendo and amino are as bad as the very worst articles. Preposterous to me and theres no discussions - just immovable opinions.

I do find it interesting about the whole direction in the industry is moving in. This is why I've moved away from Xbox and PS to be honest. Not for me. I think this is why I love Indies so much; have an increasing desire to play retro games and love Nintendo more than ever for providing what I feel are more pure, fun gaming expeircnes. I mean Nintendos roll out of constant free content for splatoon and arms should be applauded, not lumped in with being almost as bad as EA because of a hair grip you get for splatoon 2 with its amiibo.

But, like with films and Hollywood, I feel completely turned off to most of the "big" games and new practices. Inevitable I guess. Luckily there's always be passion and creativity to give us what we want!

 

[Ronnie]

1 hour ago, Goron_3 said:

And yes, gaming has never been so expensive. The cost of a AAA title at launch now is absolutely ridiculous. Even when the HD era started you could get a new game for £30 and it was the complete experience from day one. 

I genuinely don't understand how anyone can think this way.

The cost of a AAA game at launch nowadays is the same price that an NES/SNES/N64/Gamecube game used to cost, WITHOUT adjusting for 10, 20, 30 years of inflation.

Assassin's Creed will have its price slashed in half in a couple of months.

Gaming is cheaper than it's ever been, that's indisputable fact.

59 minutes ago, bob said:

I see what Ronnie is saying. Back in 1996, it cost £50 to buy Mario 64 (and many other games).

Adjusted for inflation, that is £83. So games are generally getting cheaper, but the cost of production will go up.

£83!! Yes the N64 cartridges were more expensive, but the difference isn't £40.

[Sheikah]

43 minutes ago, dazzybee said:

I paid £60 for Mortal Kombat 2 on the SNES. prices for full price releases are relatively cheaper, that's fact.

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.

 

Quote

The cost of a AAA game at launch nowadays is the same price that an NES/SNES/N64/Gamecube game used to cost, WITHOUT adjusting for 10, 20, 30 years of inflation.

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.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Sheikah

[Ronnie]

1 minute ago, Sheikah said:

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.

INFLATION.

At release, on average:

N64: $70 at release = $110 now
NES games: $50 at release = $100 now
SNES: $60 at release = $100 now
GC: $50 at release = $70 now
Switch: $60 at release

PS1: $40 at release = $65 now
PS2: $50 at release = $65 now
PS4: $60 at release

360: $60 at release = $70 now
XBO: $60 at release
 

[dazzybee]

11 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

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. Report back on your findings.

Were ps1 and ps2 games that cheap? I don't remember them being that cheap in comparison to cube and n64, I had all 4. Maybe they were but not in my memory. 

But even if they were, I still feel that with inflation, that the digital shops have reduced the price of a whole range of genres/Indies it feels like gaming is a lot cheaper than it was. The consoles themelsves too.

Either way though, it's probably not that important a factor is it? Cant remember why it came up now

[Ronnie]

If PS4 Games Only Cost $60, They're Actually Cheaper Than PS3 Games

You think games, consoles, and handhelds cost more than ever? Think again - IGN

Why retail console games have never been cheaper, historically

Edited November 15, 2017 by Ronnie

[Sheikah]

2 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

PS1: $40 at release = $65 now
PS2: $50 at release = $65 now
PS4: $60 at release
 

Great to hear you agree with me. At least in PlayStation land where up is up and down is down, they're not getting cheaper over time then.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Sheikah

[Ronnie]

Just now, Sheikah said:

Great to hear you agree with me. At least in PlayStation land where up is up and down is down, they're not getting cheaper over time then.

Ah yes Playstation land, where 65 isn't bigger than 60

[Ronnie]

So, now that we've ascertained that gaming RRP have never been cheaper than they are now, maybe you can see my point that in order to fund games that have 10x the budget of older games, publishers need to think of alternate ways of making up the difference. It's a simple point, but do you see what I mean now?

Maybe more people are gaming like you say, but the difference isn't enough. Metal Gear Solid as one example sold 5.5 million copies in 1998. MGSV shipped 6 million in Jan 16, so maybe 7 or 8 at the very most now (shipped, not sold). More copies, sure, but not enough to make up the huge difference in budget.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Ronnie

[drahkon]

So...Neogaf. What a shit show. Am I right?

Edited November 15, 2017 by drahkon

[Happenstance]

Just now, drahkon said:

So...N-Europe. What a shit show. Am I right?

 

[Sheikah]

18 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

So, now that we've ascertained that gaming RRP have never been cheaper than they are now, maybe you can see my point that in order to fund games that have 10x the budget of older games, publishers need to think of alternate ways of making up the difference. It's a simple point, but do you see what I mean now?

Maybe more people are gaming like you say, but the difference isn't enough. Metal Gear Solid as one example sold 5.5 million copies in 1998. MGSV shipped 6 million in Jan 16, so maybe 7 or 8 at the very most now (shipped, not sold). More copies, sure, but not enough to make up the huge difference in budget.

I don't follow you, your stats show that the prices have remained the same. You're arguing over...5 dollars? While also seemingly ignoring the extra revenue developers get from Plus which will help top up their development costs. Developers also make DLC now, which they weren't able to in the past - that's often half the cost of the game again for most definitely not half of the original investment. Nowhere near in fact.

I have presented a point to you that you have as yet not been able to counter.

It is a very simple point - if modern AAA game development needs microtransactions to exist, then how did Witcher 3 come to be developed, sold and not bankrupt the company?

So far you have countered with the point "Witcher 3 sold really well". Well guess what, so do many of the AAA games with microtransactions in them. Answer me why they couldn't make their big, Witcher 3 size game without including microtransactions. I argue that they don't want to leave money on the table.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Sheikah

[Jonnas]

With the direction this thread has taken, I feel like a "thrip" is in order. Also, a time-out for a couple of members.

17 hours ago, drahkon said:

I consider any kind of microtransaction, be it cosmetic only or game changing, shitty.

That is a sweeping generalization. Is the purchase of an expansion for Age of Empires II the same thing as charging for the ending of Asura's Wrath (a story-driven game)? Are Magic the Gathering and Hearthstone inherently shitty due to their business model? What about the e-reader that unlocked extra levels in the GBA version of Super Mario Bros 3, is that included in your statement?

Even within fighting games alone, the situation's complicated. Back in the day, the norm for fighting games was to release the same game on arcades multiple times with progressive updates. With the shift to consoles, that model became DLC characters and updates (it's either that, or release the same game three times), and within this model, there's Capcom, with characters that are on-disk or in-story but they sell it as Day 1 DLC anyway... and then there's Namco, Netherrealms, et al. who clearly take months post-release to develop additional DLC characters.

Heck, one of the things Jimquisition regularly complains about is microtransactions from free to play games making their way into retail games. That's not complaining about the concept of microtransactions, only how they're implemented.

Just saying, there are layers to this issue.

2 hours ago, drahkon said:

Never played Fire Emblem Heroes so I didn't know that. Well...they become shittier each day

FE Heroes works a lot like a trading card game, if that game gave you free boosters and cards periodically. Honestly, it's quite generous compared to other luck-based collectibles.

[drahkon]

3 minutes ago, Jonnas said:

That is a sweeping generalization. Is the purchase of an expansion for Age of Empires II the same thing as charging for the ending of Asura's Wrath (a story-driven game)?

To me there's a difference between microtransactions and expansions/DLC.

 

As I mentioned: The latter is fine if it's substantial and not vaguely described before release.

 

As for microtransactions: They are shitty, in my opinion. No matter the game, no matter the implementation. Hearthstone, Awesomenauts, CoD, amiibo, various trading card games...This is just my opinion, though.
 

But again, I don't really care. I hate that they made their way into many games but I ignore them in games I play. The biggest issue I have, as I've said a lot, is any kind of randomized system, i.e. loot boxes, card packs, etc. It enables gambling and with video games being easily available to kids I absolutely despise this approach to making money.

[Ronnie]

19 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

I don't follow you, your stats show that the prices have remained the same. You're arguing over...5 dollars? While also seemingly ignoring the extra revenue developers get from Plus which will help top up their development costs.

Five dollars in the Playstation example, and it's more than that, those figures are from 2013. When the PS5 launches and games are $60 the difference will be even more pronounced. AS:O will likely be half the price in a couple of months. Gamers will trade them in or sell them on. Hence season passes and the push for games as service, so that players hold onto their games over a longer period.

Quote

Developers also make DLC now, which they weren't able to in the past - that's often half the cost of the game again for most definitely not half of the original investment. Nowhere near in fact.

Yes, that's the point.

Quote

if modern AAA game development needs microtransactions to exist

I never said AAA games need micro-transactions to exist. I said that publishers have to combat wildly increasing costs and identical/cheaper game RRP with DLC, season passes and micotransactions. It's either that, or the RRP of games (for once) increases.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Ronnie

[Sheikah]

1 minute ago, Ronnie said:

Five dollars in the Playstation example, and it's more than that, those figures are from 2013. When the PS5 launches and games are $60 the difference will be even more pronounced.

Ah but it works both ways - yes that is based on a value decided in 2013, but you're comparing it back to a value that was similarly introduced one year and ridden for a generation. So it isn't really more than that - and I acknowledge this is a PlayStation example, but with the impact of cartridge costs and Nintendo having a weirdly fluctuating relationship with third parties (and most likely levies) I think this is a pretty fair case series to look at. Much harder to compare say N64 with expensive cartridges and Wii with DVDs.

1 minute ago, Ronnie said:

AS:O will likely be half the price in a couple of months.

That's because they know most people after then won't buy at full price. It's also impossible to say that they're making less money (/sales) because of this without knowing stats. Now we know more than half of Destiny 2 console sales were digital, we simply don't know the true extend of the copies sold.

1 minute ago, Ronnie said:

Yes, that's the point.

I never said AAA games need micro-transactions to exist. I said that publishers have to combat wildly increasing costs and identical/cheaper game RRP with DLC, season passes and micotransactions.

 

Ok, looking back at your post you do list "DLC" along with microtransactions as ways to increase return. That said, it was preceded by you saying "It makes no sense and it's the reason we're seeing big publishers hamper games in such an egregious way." I don't think anyone would think of Witcher 3's expansions as being something that subtracted from the main experience, rather accompanied it beautifully. I also think most people here have made a distinction between meaningful DLC/expansions and lootboxes and microtransactions.

My point has really been that AAA can be done without microtransactions. The loot boxes and microtransactions that currently plague AAA are due to greed. If EA make more revenue just from microtransactions than Witcher 3 made from the game then I have a hard time being anything but cynical!

 

 

[Jonnas]

15 minutes ago, drahkon said:

To me there's a difference between microtransactions and expansions/DLC.

 

As I mentioned: The latter is fine if it's substantial and not vaguely described before release.

 

 

Fair enough. Since the discussion included both, I certainly interpreted your statement to include both concepts (I've seen similar comments that conflate both, but apparently you didn't  do so.My bad)

15 minutes ago, drahkon said:

As for microtransactions: They are shitty, in my opinion. No matter the game, no matter the implementation. Hearthstone, Awesomenauts, CoD, amiibo, various trading card games...This is just my opinion, though.

 

But again, I don't really care. I hate that they made their way into many games but I ignore them in games I play. The biggest issue I have, as I've said a lot, is any kind of randomized system, i.e. loot boxes, card packs, etc. It enables gambling and with video games being easily available to kids I absolutely despise this approach to making money.

As someone who got into trading card games as a young one, I'd say the spenditure of money on any given game is up to the parents. But I understand this is a complex issue.

[drahkon]

5 minutes ago, Jonnas said:

Fair enough. Since the discussion included both, I certainly interpreted your statement to include both concepts (I've seen similar comments that conflate both, but apparently you didn't  do so.My bad)

No worries. I'm guilty of mixing both (microtransactions and DLC) from time to time, so I understand why you interpreted it that way.

Quote

As someone who got into trading card games as a young one, I'd say the spenditure of money on any given game is up to the parents.

It should be, but I fear that this isn't the case. I can't base this on anything other than what I've seen from several kids and their parents in recent years, though.

Edited November 15, 2017 by drahkon

[Goron_3]

22 hours ago, Ronnie said:

I genuinely don't understand how anyone can think this way.

The cost of a AAA game at launch nowadays is the same price that an NES/SNES/N64/Gamecube game used to cost, WITHOUT adjusting for 10, 20, 30 years of inflation.

Assassin's Creed will have its price slashed in half in a couple of months.

Gaming is cheaper than it's ever been, that's indisputable fact.

£83!! Yes the N64 cartridges were more expensive, but the difference isn't £40.

I specifically mentioned inflation and increased wages on my previous post

 

[Ronnie]

When I suggested AAA games are half price a couple of months after release... I meant a couple of weeks later

Not a good sign

[Ashley]

We are in prime Christmas shopping time and just before Black Friday which might be affecting it (Argos already have their sale on and retailers are just trying to outdo each other).  Not that there's not some truth, it just might be multiple reasons.