The End For Neogaf?

[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.

[Hero-of-Time]

Wolfenstein was always going to go cheap at a very fast rate. Despite being reviewed highly, the game bombed at launch. The exact same thing happened with Dishonored 2 last year and that also went cheap stupidly fast. The Evil Within 2 is also suffering the same fate. Although, reading on Era it seems that this is store specific and the official drop looks to be £29.99.

[Ronnie]

I'm surprised they didn't move the release to January, and promoted Evil Within a bit more, would have fared so much better in a quiet time and not going up against Mario and especially AC.

Edited November 16, 2017 by Ronnie

[Goron_3]

Last year I regularly spotted Tomb Raider (PS4), Titanfall and Dishonoured for sub-£20. I'm sure the same will happen this year.

[Hero-of-Time]

Just now, Ronnie said:

I'm surprised they didn't move the release to January, and promoted Evil Within a bit more, would have fared so much better not going up against Mario and especially AC.

Wolfenstein was pretty much sent out to die. 

The start of the year used to be a good time to release your game if you wanted to miss some of the heavy hitters ( Dying Light found success doing this ) but even that isn't really doable anymore. Jan-Mar was stacked this year and it's looking to be the same next year. as well.

[Hero-of-Time]

1 minute ago, Goron_3 said:

Last year I regularly spotted Tomb Raider (PS4), Titanfall and Dishonoured for sub-£20. I'm sure the same will happen this year.

Yup. If you've been gaming as long as most of us on here have, you can spot from a mile off which games are going to end up getting discounted early. I told one of my brothers to hold off buying Evil Within 2 at launch ( he loved the original )  because it would drop in price pretty quickly and sure enough it has. 

[bob]

Last year I regularly spotted Tomb Raider (PS4), Titanfall and Dishonoured for sub-£20. I'm sure the same will happen this year.

I hope so. Want to get TF2 for Christmas.

[Hero-of-Time]

Just now, bob said:

I hope so. Want to get TF2 for Christmas.

Titanfall 2? Apparently this is £5.00 instore at Asda at the moment. 

[Ronnie]

4 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

Titanfall 2? Apparently this is £5.00 instore at Asda at the moment. 

£5 for Titanfall 2!?

Even I'd be tempted at that price

[Hero-of-Time]

4 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

£5 for Titanfall 2!?

Even I'd be tempted at that price

Yup. Battlefront 1 and Call of Duty Infinite Warfare are also that price. Some of them are still available online but for the ones that aren't then you'll have to check your nearest store.