I'm kind of wondering what extra costs we're even referring to here. It's not like the previous title released a decade ago.. So, inflation, I guess?
I think there is an underlying perception that some believe is "economic truth" that since a loaf of bread cost "x" in 2000 and it costs "x+y" in 2017, everything else should follow the same pattern (never mind that wages, especially minimum wages don't... but that's a different discussion )
When applied to game prices it ignores the explosion in the market that for example, made 100K players in an MMO in 2000 a success where that would be a colossal failure in 2017.
Game prices have remained relatively the same simply because the volume of sales, without and equal volume of costs associated with the increased sales, has exploded. But there seems to be this casual folk wisdom going around that the prices should be higher because you know, bread costs more.
Then the next step is to posit that we the consumers are cheap bastards and we need to be tricked into paying what we should be paying. Sure keep the box price at $69.99 just like 10 years ago but since we should be paying more (see above) the companies need to add microtransactions and loot boxes so they can charge that $99.99 average which is what they really "should be" charging.
These things, expressed in simple twitter-friendly one liners, is what I see posted over and over again in any internet post trying to defend shady business practices in game we would otherwise want to play.
When you feed a dragon, it becomes bigger. Then it needs more food.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
I'm kind of wondering what extra costs we're even referring to here. It's not like the previous title released a decade ago.. So, inflation, I guess?
I think there is an underlying perception that some believe is "economic truth" that since a loaf of bread cost "x" in 2000 and it costs "x+y" in 2017, everything else should follow the same pattern (never mind that wages, especially minimum wages don't... but that's a different discussion )
When applied to game prices it ignores the explosion in the market that for example, made 100K players in an MMO in 2000 a success where that would be a colossal failure in 2017.
Game prices have remained relatively the same simply because the volume of sales, without and equal volume of costs associated with the increased sales, has exploded. But there seems to be this casual folk wisdom going around that the prices should be higher because you know, bread costs more.
Then the next step is to posit that we the consumers are cheap bastards and we need to be tricked into paying what we should be paying. Sure keep the box price at $69.99 just like 10 years ago but since we should be paying more (see above) the companies need to add microtransactions and loot boxes so they can charge that $99.99 average which is what they really "should be" charging.
These things, expressed in simple twitter-friendly one liners, is what I see posted over and over again in any internet post trying to defend shady business practices in game we would otherwise want to play.
Yes, the gaming audience in general has enjoyed substantial and sustained growth over the past decade, from what I've seen from entities like the ESA. And I remember a time new titles only cost 50 USD, actually. So box costs have increased, despite the transition to electronic purchases eliminating a substantial amount of the manufacturing and transportation costs of selling copies. All this contributes to your point.
Not only eliminating the manufacturing and transportation costs, but frequently eliminating the wholesale/retail markup. No need to cut in Gamestop if your customer just downloads directly from you.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Just in case everyone forgot about EA everyone should remember that it's EA.
This was bound to happen sooner or later because --->EA
It's unfortunate that Disney gave exclusive game rights for Star Wars to this company but many people knew they were testing the waters with their cash shop in SWTOR and what is happening now is the result.
I'm kind of wondering what extra costs we're even referring to here. It's not like the previous title released a decade ago.. So, inflation, I guess?
I think there is an underlying perception that some believe is "economic truth" that since a loaf of bread cost "x" in 2000 and it costs "x+y" in 2017, everything else should follow the same pattern (never mind that wages, especially minimum wages don't... but that's a different discussion )
When applied to game prices it ignores the explosion in the market that for example, made 100K players in an MMO in 2000 a success where that would be a colossal failure in 2017.
Game prices have remained relatively the same simply because the volume of sales, without and equal volume of costs associated with the increased sales, has exploded. But there seems to be this casual folk wisdom going around that the prices should be higher because you know, bread costs more.
Then the next step is to posit that we the consumers are cheap bastards and we need to be tricked into paying what we should be paying. Sure keep the box price at $69.99 just like 10 years ago but since we should be paying more (see above) the companies need to add microtransactions and loot boxes so they can charge that $99.99 average which is what they really "should be" charging.
These things, expressed in simple twitter-friendly one liners, is what I see posted over and over again in any internet post trying to defend shady business practices in game we would otherwise want to play.
Yes, the gaming audience in general has enjoyed substantial and sustained growth over the past decade, from what I've seen from entities like the ESA. And I remember a time new titles only cost 50 USD, actually. So box costs have increased, despite the transition to electronic purchases eliminating a substantial amount of the manufacturing and transportation costs of selling copies. All this contributes to your point.
Posted before so I'll just sumarize instead of linking all articles and posts. Physical to digital hardly saves anything, not more then 5 bucks max per product. Production costs have increased 15x and money from sales about 5x in the last 10 years, do the math. A game should cost between 100-130 dollars compared to 15 years ago, that is taking everything into consideration from inflation correction to increased profits etc.
Are companies greedy? Hell yes, but we are paying low prices for our entertainment at the moment, we sure as hell aren't victims, just cheap.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
You're subjectively giving what you accept in monetization a pass. Whether you feel like someone "worked and earned" something in an mmo isn't relevant or change the fact of what I said, you don't progress in an mmo without forking over money.
So you're calling for a unified resistance and boycott of publishers and practices based on your subjective approval of what's acceptable. You've already said that you're okay with publishers charging for progression but you're haggling over details. Say you get your way and they remove loot crates from the game. Where do you expect that revenue shift to take place?
We've run over different manifestations of these topics so many times that we begin to perceive each other as known forum archetypes after awhile. But pretty sure I didn't mention boycott. Maybe instead of suggesting that gamers put up a fight I should've called for an ascent to reason
Yes, I think that gamers should not support pay-to-win style monetization. Yes, I would not mind that some of my arguments might compel others to not support pay-to-win style monetization. But, beyond those two admissions, I would prefer to leave the matter to individual sense and preference.
Furthermore, I don't feel like we necessarily need to apply the acid test of objectivity claims to this discussion. It doesn't require any great leap of faith to concede that there is some demonstrable bad and some demonstrable good on each side of this issue. I do agree, for example, that DLC is often likely to cause fragmenting of playerbase. I also agree that online games are likely to suffer acutely from lack of player partners/player adversaries or even merely the perception of that predicament, and that fragmentation could potentially lead to either of those conditions.
Conversely, is it not easy to believe that the gambling aspect of those lootboxes causes harm to many individuals, and that if the exploitation of that harm is a design decision then it is highly unscrupulous? Or that publishers are likely to want to push the boundaries beyond what even you call acceptable monetization to a new market model where they can perceive even more obscenely increased profits?
Where you ask what will replace it, I ask where will it stop?
I realize that I might appear to be skirting your main point against me, that I don't properly recognize that paying money for any type of progression (expansion, DLC, the like) is inherently a pay-to-win type transaction equivalent to any other type of pay-to-win transaction (gear or game currency). So I'll answer that charge by simply suggesting that you are missing the difference between course distinctions and fine ones.
I am not ethically concerned with the type of content where one can advance their characters in added new environments, in new battlegrounds, in new worlds; because those type of spaces are an expansion of the fictional dream that is the very point of our gaming, a profound appeal to the worth not only our characters but to the imagination of the players themselves. That there are new more powerful swords and robust chainmaille--or whatever genre equivalent you prefer--should be purely ancillary to the profound challenges that games proffer to us.
And buying a lootbox for an RNG roll at becoming more powerful is coarseness exemplified, diminishing the meaning of challenge, and trivializing the soul and essence of good gameplay--or even more importantly, good video game gameplay!
I'm kind of wondering what extra costs we're even referring to here. It's not like the previous title released a decade ago.. So, inflation, I guess?
I think there is an underlying perception that some believe is "economic truth" that since a loaf of bread cost "x" in 2000 and it costs "x+y" in 2017, everything else should follow the same pattern (never mind that wages, especially minimum wages don't... but that's a different discussion )
When applied to game prices it ignores the explosion in the market that for example, made 100K players in an MMO in 2000 a success where that would be a colossal failure in 2017.
Game prices have remained relatively the same simply because the volume of sales, without and equal volume of costs associated with the increased sales, has exploded. But there seems to be this casual folk wisdom going around that the prices should be higher because you know, bread costs more.
Then the next step is to posit that we the consumers are cheap bastards and we need to be tricked into paying what we should be paying. Sure keep the box price at $69.99 just like 10 years ago but since we should be paying more (see above) the companies need to add microtransactions and loot boxes so they can charge that $99.99 average which is what they really "should be" charging.
These things, expressed in simple twitter-friendly one liners, is what I see posted over and over again in any internet post trying to defend shady business practices in game we would otherwise want to play.
Yes, the gaming audience in general has enjoyed substantial and sustained growth over the past decade, from what I've seen from entities like the ESA. And I remember a time new titles only cost 50 USD, actually. So box costs have increased, despite the transition to electronic purchases eliminating a substantial amount of the manufacturing and transportation costs of selling copies. All this contributes to your point.
Posted before so I'll just sumarize instead of linking all articles and posts. Physical to digital hardly saves anything, not more then 5 bucks max per product. Production costs have increased 15x and money from sales about 5x in the last 10 years, do the math. A game should cost between 100-130 dollars compared to 15 years ago, that is taking everything into consideration from inflation correction to increased profits etc.
Are companies greedy? Hell yes, but we are paying low prices for our entertainment at the moment, we sure as hell aren't victims, just cheap.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Actually, in a quick Google search (at work), the only seemingly reliable source I could find (albeit a bit old, 2010) showed that damn near 30% of the 60 dollar retail cost went to the retailer and cost of production and shipping. So I'd ask you link the more current and/or more supported data refuting this.
There's the data I mentioned. Again, it's old, but I'm at work and don't have time to do an hour long research for more recent data. I'm open to reviewing anything more recent.
I'm kind of wondering what extra costs we're even referring to here. It's not like the previous title released a decade ago.. So, inflation, I guess?
It's just an excuse for apologists to apologize.
Well, in this case specifically, it's a sequel to a less than 2 year old game of the same setting, art style, and general gameplay, using the same studio and same engine... So yeah, I highly doubt there was some huge increase in development cost between the two. I mean, unless they decided to throw all old models, textures, and other art assets out to start from scratch. But that would, quite frankly, be a piss poor decision for what amounts to a large expansion title to the first.
When MMOs began the CEO's were fans of the genre, they wanted to create a new world for gaming. That time is long past and as a former EA CEO has said we want to make games your mum could play. It became all about maximising market and money for many years now. I remember when fans were employed as company reps, in game stewards; who does that now? Maybe some Indies still do?
I'm kind of wondering what extra costs we're even referring to here. It's not like the previous title released a decade ago.. So, inflation, I guess?
I think there is an underlying perception that some believe is "economic truth" that since a loaf of bread cost "x" in 2000 and it costs "x+y" in 2017, everything else should follow the same pattern (never mind that wages, especially minimum wages don't... but that's a different discussion )
When applied to game prices it ignores the explosion in the market that for example, made 100K players in an MMO in 2000 a success where that would be a colossal failure in 2017.
Game prices have remained relatively the same simply because the volume of sales, without and equal volume of costs associated with the increased sales, has exploded. But there seems to be this casual folk wisdom going around that the prices should be higher because you know, bread costs more.
Then the next step is to posit that we the consumers are cheap bastards and we need to be tricked into paying what we should be paying. Sure keep the box price at $69.99 just like 10 years ago but since we should be paying more (see above) the companies need to add microtransactions and loot boxes so they can charge that $99.99 average which is what they really "should be" charging.
These things, expressed in simple twitter-friendly one liners, is what I see posted over and over again in any internet post trying to defend shady business practices in game we would otherwise want to play.
Yes, the gaming audience in general has enjoyed substantial and sustained growth over the past decade, from what I've seen from entities like the ESA. And I remember a time new titles only cost 50 USD, actually. So box costs have increased, despite the transition to electronic purchases eliminating a substantial amount of the manufacturing and transportation costs of selling copies. All this contributes to your point.
Posted before so I'll just sumarize instead of linking all articles and posts. Physical to digital hardly saves anything, not more then 5 bucks max per product. Production costs have increased 15x and money from sales about 5x in the last 10 years, do the math. A game should cost between 100-130 dollars compared to 15 years ago, that is taking everything into consideration from inflation correction to increased profits etc.
Are companies greedy? Hell yes, but we are paying low prices for our entertainment at the moment, we sure as hell aren't victims, just cheap.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Actually, in a quick Google search (at work), the only seemingly reliable source I could find (albeit a bit old, 2010) showed that damn near 30% of the 60 dollar retail cost went to the retailer and cost of production and shipping. So I'd ask you link the more current and/or more supported data refuting this.
There's the data I mentioned. Again, it's old, but I'm at work and don't have time to do an hour long research for more recent data. I'm open to reviewing anything more recent.
The 2010 article you mention wouldn't coincidentally be an article by Alex Pham for the NYT? Thats the one I am referring too. Gamerant.com uses his cost dividing in one of their articles. Mind you, its not the only source of info I used, I also checked Wiki on rising production costs for various platforms over the last 10/15 years and an IGN article concerning inflation correction when it comes to games. All that combined got me these numbers. Check the Shadow of War: microtransaction thread around here somewhere, its in there.
Also, it doesn't mean what I got out of it is the truth, I just haven't seen anyone with better data.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
I'm kind of wondering what extra costs we're even referring to here. It's not like the previous title released a decade ago.. So, inflation, I guess?
I think there is an underlying perception that some believe is "economic truth" that since a loaf of bread cost "x" in 2000 and it costs "x+y" in 2017, everything else should follow the same pattern (never mind that wages, especially minimum wages don't... but that's a different discussion )
When applied to game prices it ignores the explosion in the market that for example, made 100K players in an MMO in 2000 a success where that would be a colossal failure in 2017.
Game prices have remained relatively the same simply because the volume of sales, without and equal volume of costs associated with the increased sales, has exploded. But there seems to be this casual folk wisdom going around that the prices should be higher because you know, bread costs more.
Then the next step is to posit that we the consumers are cheap bastards and we need to be tricked into paying what we should be paying. Sure keep the box price at $69.99 just like 10 years ago but since we should be paying more (see above) the companies need to add microtransactions and loot boxes so they can charge that $99.99 average which is what they really "should be" charging.
These things, expressed in simple twitter-friendly one liners, is what I see posted over and over again in any internet post trying to defend shady business practices in game we would otherwise want to play.
Yes, the gaming audience in general has enjoyed substantial and sustained growth over the past decade, from what I've seen from entities like the ESA. And I remember a time new titles only cost 50 USD, actually. So box costs have increased, despite the transition to electronic purchases eliminating a substantial amount of the manufacturing and transportation costs of selling copies. All this contributes to your point.
Posted before so I'll just sumarize instead of linking all articles and posts. Physical to digital hardly saves anything, not more then 5 bucks max per product. Production costs have increased 15x and money from sales about 5x in the last 10 years, do the math. A game should cost between 100-130 dollars compared to 15 years ago, that is taking everything into consideration from inflation correction to increased profits etc.
Are companies greedy? Hell yes, but we are paying low prices for our entertainment at the moment, we sure as hell aren't victims, just cheap.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Actually, in a quick Google search (at work), the only seemingly reliable source I could find (albeit a bit old, 2010) showed that damn near 30% of the 60 dollar retail cost went to the retailer and cost of production and shipping. So I'd ask you link the more current and/or more supported data refuting this.
There's the data I mentioned. Again, it's old, but I'm at work and don't have time to do an hour long research for more recent data. I'm open to reviewing anything more recent.
The 2010 article you mention wouldn't coincidentally be an article by Alex Pham for the NYT? Thats the one I am referring too. Gamerant.com uses his cost dividing in one of their articles. Mind you, its not the only source of info I used, I also checked Wiki on rising production costs for various platforms over the last 10/15 years and an IGN article concerning inflation correction when it comes to games. All that combined got me these numbers. Check the Shadow of War: microtransaction thread around here somewhere, its in there.
Also, it doesn't mean what I got out of it is the truth, I just haven't seen anyone with better data.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
It uses that same data, which shows that publishers save almost 30% by avoiding retailers like GameStop and production costs associated with physical discs.
Gamerant's article seemingly also offers evidence that the bloated costs of producing a game is largely self-inflicted. The Witcher 3 cost 4 times what W2 cost to develop, but the article then goes on to assert that it's the marketing and associated production costs that cause the profit margins to shrink despite the Witcher 3 earning almost 4 times the revenue it cost to develop the game in just the first two weeks. And, despite all this in the article, CD Projekt Red still didn't include such microtransactions because, again, they didn't have to: quality begets profits.
That gamerant's article also specifically talks about large studios, not indie efforts or crowdfunding titles. I'm not sure I see where the article is offering good support of the idea that microtransactions are required to turn a profit. They're simply another avenue that these publishers have found to push on gamers.
I'm kind of wondering what extra costs we're even referring to here. It's not like the previous title released a decade ago.. So, inflation, I guess?
I think there is an underlying perception that some believe is "economic truth" that since a loaf of bread cost "x" in 2000 and it costs "x+y" in 2017, everything else should follow the same pattern (never mind that wages, especially minimum wages don't... but that's a different discussion )
When applied to game prices it ignores the explosion in the market that for example, made 100K players in an MMO in 2000 a success where that would be a colossal failure in 2017.
Game prices have remained relatively the same simply because the volume of sales, without and equal volume of costs associated with the increased sales, has exploded. But there seems to be this casual folk wisdom going around that the prices should be higher because you know, bread costs more.
Then the next step is to posit that we the consumers are cheap bastards and we need to be tricked into paying what we should be paying. Sure keep the box price at $69.99 just like 10 years ago but since we should be paying more (see above) the companies need to add microtransactions and loot boxes so they can charge that $99.99 average which is what they really "should be" charging.
These things, expressed in simple twitter-friendly one liners, is what I see posted over and over again in any internet post trying to defend shady business practices in game we would otherwise want to play.
While there's truth to that and it's a good point, there are other reasons why prices go up. It's not "all about development costs" and "fiscal projections" incorporate a lot of things. Salaries go up, rents go up, Utilities go up.
So yeah, if 100k people used to buy games (obviously not an accurate number) and now 1 million people buy games (not an accurate number) then companies are making more money than ever before.
But as I keep saying these are large, publicly traded companies. They don't just sit there looking at what's coming in and saying "well geez guyz, we're making ever so much money, we can just consider ourselves a success!".
No, they are saying "1 million people buy games now therefore the market shows us that we can expect to make this much money because more people are buying games which means let's beat it!"
That's how it works. If the know that they can make x amount of dollars because of increased sales then that's the new normal to beat.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I'm kind of wondering what extra costs we're even referring to here. It's not like the previous title released a decade ago.. So, inflation, I guess?
I think there is an underlying perception that some believe is "economic truth" that since a loaf of bread cost "x" in 2000 and it costs "x+y" in 2017, everything else should follow the same pattern (never mind that wages, especially minimum wages don't... but that's a different discussion )
When applied to game prices it ignores the explosion in the market that for example, made 100K players in an MMO in 2000 a success where that would be a colossal failure in 2017.
Game prices have remained relatively the same simply because the volume of sales, without and equal volume of costs associated with the increased sales, has exploded. But there seems to be this casual folk wisdom going around that the prices should be higher because you know, bread costs more.
Then the next step is to posit that we the consumers are cheap bastards and we need to be tricked into paying what we should be paying. Sure keep the box price at $69.99 just like 10 years ago but since we should be paying more (see above) the companies need to add microtransactions and loot boxes so they can charge that $99.99 average which is what they really "should be" charging.
These things, expressed in simple twitter-friendly one liners, is what I see posted over and over again in any internet post trying to defend shady business practices in game we would otherwise want to play.
While there's truth to that and it's a good point, there are other reasons why prices go up. It's not "all about development costs" and "fiscal projections" incorporate a lot of things. Salaries go up, rents go up, Utilities go up.
So yeah, if 100k people used to buy games (obviously not an accurate number) and now 1 million people buy games (not an accurate number) then companies are making more money than ever before.
But as I keep saying these are large, publicly traded companies. They don't just sit there looking at what's coming in and saying "well geez guyz, we're making ever so much money, we can just consider ourselves a success!".
No, they are saying "1 million people buy games now therefore the market shows us that we can expect to make this much money because more people are buying games which means let's beat it!"
That's how it works. If the know that they can make x amount of dollars because of increased sales then that's the new normal to beat.
Speaking specifically to salaries, as that's the highest cost of the 3 examples you mentioned, is there evidence to support the idea that the average game developer salary has increased substantially?
A survey of over 4000 developers from gamasutra in 2014 actually showed the average salary decreased 2 percent from the prior year.
More recently, from a Develop survey in 2016: "It may not be as high as 2013’s average of £34,183 but it’s a significant rise from last year’s result – and our all-time low – of £31,882. It should be noted these are the median averages in order to ensure high earners and low-income indies did not distort the overall results."
So it seems that per that survey, tracking from 2013 to 2016, there's no strong evidence support the idea that the average wage per employee has increased enough to put a huge strain on a publisher's bottom line.
I'm kind of wondering what extra costs we're even referring to here. It's not like the previous title released a decade ago.. So, inflation, I guess?
I think there is an underlying perception that some believe is "economic truth" that since a loaf of bread cost "x" in 2000 and it costs "x+y" in 2017, everything else should follow the same pattern (never mind that wages, especially minimum wages don't... but that's a different discussion )
When applied to game prices it ignores the explosion in the market that for example, made 100K players in an MMO in 2000 a success where that would be a colossal failure in 2017.
Game prices have remained relatively the same simply because the volume of sales, without and equal volume of costs associated with the increased sales, has exploded. But there seems to be this casual folk wisdom going around that the prices should be higher because you know, bread costs more.
Then the next step is to posit that we the consumers are cheap bastards and we need to be tricked into paying what we should be paying. Sure keep the box price at $69.99 just like 10 years ago but since we should be paying more (see above) the companies need to add microtransactions and loot boxes so they can charge that $99.99 average which is what they really "should be" charging.
These things, expressed in simple twitter-friendly one liners, is what I see posted over and over again in any internet post trying to defend shady business practices in game we would otherwise want to play.
Yes, the gaming audience in general has enjoyed substantial and sustained growth over the past decade, from what I've seen from entities like the ESA. And I remember a time new titles only cost 50 USD, actually. So box costs have increased, despite the transition to electronic purchases eliminating a substantial amount of the manufacturing and transportation costs of selling copies. All this contributes to your point.
Posted before so I'll just sumarize instead of linking all articles and posts. Physical to digital hardly saves anything, not more then 5 bucks max per product. Production costs have increased 15x and money from sales about 5x in the last 10 years, do the math. A game should cost between 100-130 dollars compared to 15 years ago, that is taking everything into consideration from inflation correction to increased profits etc.
Are companies greedy? Hell yes, but we are paying low prices for our entertainment at the moment, we sure as hell aren't victims, just cheap.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Actually, in a quick Google search (at work), the only seemingly reliable source I could find (albeit a bit old, 2010) showed that damn near 30% of the 60 dollar retail cost went to the retailer and cost of production and shipping. So I'd ask you link the more current and/or more supported data refuting this.
There's the data I mentioned. Again, it's old, but I'm at work and don't have time to do an hour long research for more recent data. I'm open to reviewing anything more recent.
The 2010 article you mention wouldn't coincidentally be an article by Alex Pham for the NYT? Thats the one I am referring too. Gamerant.com uses his cost dividing in one of their articles. Mind you, its not the only source of info I used, I also checked Wiki on rising production costs for various platforms over the last 10/15 years and an IGN article concerning inflation correction when it comes to games. All that combined got me these numbers. Check the Shadow of War: microtransaction thread around here somewhere, its in there.
Also, it doesn't mean what I got out of it is the truth, I just haven't seen anyone with better data.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
It uses that same data, which shows that publishers save almost 30% by avoiding retailers like GameStop and production costs associated with physical discs.
Gamerant's article seemingly also offers evidence that the bloated costs of producing a game is largely self-inflicted. The Witcher 3 cost 4 times what W2 cost to develop, but the article then goes on to assert that it's the marketing and associated production costs that cause the profit margins to shrink despite the Witcher 3 earning almost 4 times the revenue it cost to develop the game in just the first two weeks. And, despite all this in the article, CD Projekt Red still didn't include such microtransactions because, again, they didn't have to: quality begets profits.
That gamerant's article also specifically talks about large studios, not indie efforts or crowdfunding titles. I'm not sure I see where the article is offering good support of the idea that microtransactions are required to turn a profit. They're simply another avenue that these publishers have found to push on gamers.
I don't think companies that size are looking at 'right now,' they are looking at the future. And with expenses rising so quickly, self inflicted or not, they are already increasing income to be able to deal with these higher costs. Another factor is that the higher the costs, the higher the risks. Just imagine Witcher 4 being a commercial disaster and how much damage that would cause. I really don't think we can talk about simply another revenue being pushed on us gamers. That really doesn't mean it doesn't happen every now and then, I just think that in general it is much more nuanced then greedy companies vs poor gamers.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
I'm kind of wondering what extra costs we're even referring to here. It's not like the previous title released a decade ago.. So, inflation, I guess?
I think there is an underlying perception that some believe is "economic truth" that since a loaf of bread cost "x" in 2000 and it costs "x+y" in 2017, everything else should follow the same pattern (never mind that wages, especially minimum wages don't... but that's a different discussion )
When applied to game prices it ignores the explosion in the market that for example, made 100K players in an MMO in 2000 a success where that would be a colossal failure in 2017.
Game prices have remained relatively the same simply because the volume of sales, without and equal volume of costs associated with the increased sales, has exploded. But there seems to be this casual folk wisdom going around that the prices should be higher because you know, bread costs more.
Then the next step is to posit that we the consumers are cheap bastards and we need to be tricked into paying what we should be paying. Sure keep the box price at $69.99 just like 10 years ago but since we should be paying more (see above) the companies need to add microtransactions and loot boxes so they can charge that $99.99 average which is what they really "should be" charging.
These things, expressed in simple twitter-friendly one liners, is what I see posted over and over again in any internet post trying to defend shady business practices in game we would otherwise want to play.
Yes, the gaming audience in general has enjoyed substantial and sustained growth over the past decade, from what I've seen from entities like the ESA. And I remember a time new titles only cost 50 USD, actually. So box costs have increased, despite the transition to electronic purchases eliminating a substantial amount of the manufacturing and transportation costs of selling copies. All this contributes to your point.
Posted before so I'll just sumarize instead of linking all articles and posts. Physical to digital hardly saves anything, not more then 5 bucks max per product. Production costs have increased 15x and money from sales about 5x in the last 10 years, do the math. A game should cost between 100-130 dollars compared to 15 years ago, that is taking everything into consideration from inflation correction to increased profits etc.
Are companies greedy? Hell yes, but we are paying low prices for our entertainment at the moment, we sure as hell aren't victims, just cheap.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Actually, in a quick Google search (at work), the only seemingly reliable source I could find (albeit a bit old, 2010) showed that damn near 30% of the 60 dollar retail cost went to the retailer and cost of production and shipping. So I'd ask you link the more current and/or more supported data refuting this.
There's the data I mentioned. Again, it's old, but I'm at work and don't have time to do an hour long research for more recent data. I'm open to reviewing anything more recent.
The 2010 article you mention wouldn't coincidentally be an article by Alex Pham for the NYT? Thats the one I am referring too. Gamerant.com uses his cost dividing in one of their articles. Mind you, its not the only source of info I used, I also checked Wiki on rising production costs for various platforms over the last 10/15 years and an IGN article concerning inflation correction when it comes to games. All that combined got me these numbers. Check the Shadow of War: microtransaction thread around here somewhere, its in there.
Also, it doesn't mean what I got out of it is the truth, I just haven't seen anyone with better data.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
It uses that same data, which shows that publishers save almost 30% by avoiding retailers like GameStop and production costs associated with physical discs.
Gamerant's article seemingly also offers evidence that the bloated costs of producing a game is largely self-inflicted. The Witcher 3 cost 4 times what W2 cost to develop, but the article then goes on to assert that it's the marketing and associated production costs that cause the profit margins to shrink despite the Witcher 3 earning almost 4 times the revenue it cost to develop the game in just the first two weeks. And, despite all this in the article, CD Projekt Red still didn't include such microtransactions because, again, they didn't have to: quality begets profits.
That gamerant's article also specifically talks about large studios, not indie efforts or crowdfunding titles. I'm not sure I see where the article is offering good support of the idea that microtransactions are required to turn a profit. They're simply another avenue that these publishers have found to push on gamers.
I don't think companies that size are looking at 'right now,' they are looking at the future. And with expenses rising so quickly, self inflicted or not, they are already increasing income to be able to deal with these higher costs. Another factor is that the higher the costs, the higher the risks. Just imagine Witcher 4 being a commercial disaster and how much damage that would cause. I really don't think we can talk about simply another revenue being pushed on us gamers. That really doesn't mean it doesn't happen every now and then, I just think that in general it is much more nuanced then greedy companies vs poor gamers.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
That's fair. I think it's most fair in the realm of indie developers or crowdfunded titles than AAA, though. As cynical as it might sound, when you're developing titles with needlessly advanced graphics (how many gamers could even run W3, the example sans microtransactions, at Ultra with friggin Nvidia Hairworks enabled for all models when it was released?), coupled with insane marketing budgets..... I don't feel that we, as gamers, asked nor desired those costs to even be incurred. I know I had no interest in Hairworks, not with my PC. Did you?
Those things are not cost-efficient when 90% of your audience won't even be able to use it for anything beyond taking screenshots. And, good forbid, you spend time on high-def graphics that aren't even indicative of the final offered product (Watch Dogs?). When AAA publishers are pulling that kind of crap, they don't get a whole lot of sympathy from many of us reference a complaint about increased development costs.
I'm kind of wondering what extra costs we're even referring to here. It's not like the previous title released a decade ago.. So, inflation, I guess?
I think there is an underlying perception that some believe is "economic truth" that since a loaf of bread cost "x" in 2000 and it costs "x+y" in 2017, everything else should follow the same pattern (never mind that wages, especially minimum wages don't... but that's a different discussion )
When applied to game prices it ignores the explosion in the market that for example, made 100K players in an MMO in 2000 a success where that would be a colossal failure in 2017.
Game prices have remained relatively the same simply because the volume of sales, without and equal volume of costs associated with the increased sales, has exploded. But there seems to be this casual folk wisdom going around that the prices should be higher because you know, bread costs more.
Then the next step is to posit that we the consumers are cheap bastards and we need to be tricked into paying what we should be paying. Sure keep the box price at $69.99 just like 10 years ago but since we should be paying more (see above) the companies need to add microtransactions and loot boxes so they can charge that $99.99 average which is what they really "should be" charging.
These things, expressed in simple twitter-friendly one liners, is what I see posted over and over again in any internet post trying to defend shady business practices in game we would otherwise want to play.
Yes, the gaming audience in general has enjoyed substantial and sustained growth over the past decade, from what I've seen from entities like the ESA. And I remember a time new titles only cost 50 USD, actually. So box costs have increased, despite the transition to electronic purchases eliminating a substantial amount of the manufacturing and transportation costs of selling copies. All this contributes to your point.
Not only eliminating the manufacturing and transportation costs, but frequently eliminating the wholesale/retail markup. No need to cut in Gamestop if your customer just downloads directly from you.
I remember when the option to buy digital first came around, digital was always cheaper than buying the box version because of the saved money from cutting the middle man.. what ever happened to that? Now the cost is the same all around unless you go to a site that happens to be having a sale.
Don't get me wrong either, I'm not against a company making money or the employees making money but there needs to be a balance and obviously this is not the balance.
Been following this thread and just makes for a lot of questions. I have seen multiple posts about costs going up and I have to really question that thought. We have had very low or no inflation for many years, so please explain how costs are going up? Secondly, if you want to make money in this world the one thing you don't do is work for a game developer, salaries are pathetic compared to the business world.
Unless there is a huge money sink in this process, these studios are all making bank ignoring those games that flop which are few and far between.
IMO the most of the large developers are getting very greedy with all the DLC and now the loot box syndrome. They are squeezing every cent they can out of these games. I really have no problem with them making money, but when they introduce the GAMBLING aspect they have gone too far.
So if they put these RNG loot boxes in a game they deserve every rotten review they get because of them. I am all for getting gambling taxes piled on their profit margins because it is exactly that. I have yet to see any decent counter to the gambling argument in any thread I have seen. That includes this board and many others.
Sorry MikeB, but your article is just a lot of hot air and I would not be very proud that your name is attached to that.
I'm kind of wondering what extra costs we're even referring to here. It's not like the previous title released a decade ago.. So, inflation, I guess?
I think there is an underlying perception that some believe is "economic truth" that since a loaf of bread cost "x" in 2000 and it costs "x+y" in 2017, everything else should follow the same pattern (never mind that wages, especially minimum wages don't... but that's a different discussion )
When applied to game prices it ignores the explosion in the market that for example, made 100K players in an MMO in 2000 a success where that would be a colossal failure in 2017.
Game prices have remained relatively the same simply because the volume of sales, without and equal volume of costs associated with the increased sales, has exploded. But there seems to be this casual folk wisdom going around that the prices should be higher because you know, bread costs more.
Then the next step is to posit that we the consumers are cheap bastards and we need to be tricked into paying what we should be paying. Sure keep the box price at $69.99 just like 10 years ago but since we should be paying more (see above) the companies need to add microtransactions and loot boxes so they can charge that $99.99 average which is what they really "should be" charging.
These things, expressed in simple twitter-friendly one liners, is what I see posted over and over again in any internet post trying to defend shady business practices in game we would otherwise want to play.
While there's truth to that and it's a good point, there are other reasons why prices go up. It's not "all about development costs" and "fiscal projections" incorporate a lot of things. Salaries go up, rents go up, Utilities go up.
So yeah, if 100k people used to buy games (obviously not an accurate number) and now 1 million people buy games (not an accurate number) then companies are making more money than ever before.
But as I keep saying these are large, publicly traded companies. They don't just sit there looking at what's coming in and saying "well geez guyz, we're making ever so much money, we can just consider ourselves a success!".
No, they are saying "1 million people buy games now therefore the market shows us that we can expect to make this much money because more people are buying games which means let's beat it!"
That's how it works. If the know that they can make x amount of dollars because of increased sales then that's the new normal to beat.
That's fine insofar as the companies targets, projections and desires go. What I take issue with is using that to proclaim that the pricing is correct or worse, a bargain which is where many here take it as a justification for the annoying costs to us.
It IS reality but it's perfectly fine to be annoyed with that reality and say "fuck you EA, I ain't buying your spin."
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Actually, in a quick Google search (at work), the only seemingly reliable source I could find (albeit a bit old, 2010) showed that damn near 30% of the 60 dollar retail cost went to the retailer and cost of production and shipping. So I'd ask you link the more current and/or more supported data refuting this.
There's the data I mentioned. Again, it's old, but I'm at work and don't have time to do an hour long research for more recent data. I'm open to reviewing anything more recent.
The 2010 article you mention wouldn't coincidentally be an article by Alex Pham for the NYT? Thats the one I am referring too. Gamerant.com uses his cost dividing in one of their articles. Mind you, its not the only source of info I used, I also checked Wiki on rising production costs for various platforms over the last 10/15 years and an IGN article concerning inflation correction when it comes to games. All that combined got me these numbers. Check the Shadow of War: microtransaction thread around here somewhere, its in there.
Also, it doesn't mean what I got out of it is the truth, I just haven't seen anyone with better data.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
It uses that same data, which shows that publishers save almost 30% by avoiding retailers like GameStop and production costs associated with physical discs.
Gamerant's article seemingly also offers evidence that the bloated costs of producing a game is largely self-inflicted. The Witcher 3 cost 4 times what W2 cost to develop, but the article then goes on to assert that it's the marketing and associated production costs that cause the profit margins to shrink despite the Witcher 3 earning almost 4 times the revenue it cost to develop the game in just the first two weeks. And, despite all this in the article, CD Projekt Red still didn't include such microtransactions because, again, they didn't have to: quality begets profits.
That gamerant's article also specifically talks about large studios, not indie efforts or crowdfunding titles. I'm not sure I see where the article is offering good support of the idea that microtransactions are required to turn a profit. They're simply another avenue that these publishers have found to push on gamers.
I don't think companies that size are looking at 'right now,' they are looking at the future. And with expenses rising so quickly, self inflicted or not, they are already increasing income to be able to deal with these higher costs. Another factor is that the higher the costs, the higher the risks. Just imagine Witcher 4 being a commercial disaster and how much damage that would cause. I really don't think we can talk about simply another revenue being pushed on us gamers. That really doesn't mean it doesn't happen every now and then, I just think that in general it is much more nuanced then greedy companies vs poor gamers.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
That's fair. I think it's most fair in the realm of indie developers or crowdfunded titles than AAA, though. As cynical as it might sound, when you're developing titles with needlessly advanced graphics (how many gamers could even run W3, the example sans microtransactions, at Ultra with friggin Nvidia Hairworks enabled for all models when it was released?), coupled with insane marketing budgets..... I don't feel that we, as gamers, asked nor desired those costs to even be incurred. I know I had no interest in Hairworks, not with my PC. Did you?
Those things are not cost-efficient when 90% of your audience won't even be able to use it for anything beyond taking screenshots. And, good forbid, you spend time on high-def graphics that aren't even indicative of the final offered product (Watch Dogs?). When AAA publishers are pulling that kind of crap, they don't get a whole lot of sympathy from many of us reference a complaint about increased development costs.
Ohh, I definitely agree on the two issues you mention. The whole Hairworks thing seemed like one big sponsored feature to me, simply promoting Nvidia tech through use in a game. I wouldn't be surprised if CD got nicely compensated for integrating that. And no, no way I cared or could run it hahaha.
The Watch Dogs fiasco is downright scamming as far as I'm concerned. Screenshots from a game should represent how the actual game looks. Imagine listening to a song and finding out the actual album you bought doesn't sound like that at all. Or watching a movie trailer to find out the footage used isn't in the actual movie, I could go on.
I am not sure about not incorporating stuff hardly anyone uses. Should developers stop making high level dungeons and content because 95% won't see it for instance? Should developers spend time and resources on easy modes in games when we already know how to play? Tutorials? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but I find it a slippery slope. Some might argue that these high graphical features are part of the game too.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Been following this thread and just makes for a lot of questions. I have seen multiple posts about costs going up and I have to really question that thought. We have had very low or no inflation for many years, so please explain how costs are going up? Secondly, if you want to make money in this world the one thing you don't do is work for a game developer, salaries are pathetic compared to the business world.
Unless there is a huge money sink in this process, these studios are all making bank ignoring those games that flop which are few and far between.
But it isn't about inflation correction alone. Teams have increased in size a tenfold over the last two decades, marketing costs have gone through the roof because the competition got a lot more fierce and your product needs to stand out from the crowd. Back in the day you released a game and it was out there. Now you need to keep managing it with bug fixes, patches, updates. This is all required, we consumers demand it. And all of the above doesn't come for free.
Costs have gone up 15X on average and revenue only 5X, just look at the average price for a PS2 game compared to a PS3 or PS4 game, you'll be amazed.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
I expect we'll see a lot more of this "Buy the game; now buy the game again" design. Shadow of War also uses a similar design. Yes, you can grind and grind to get what comes in the loot boxes or, you know, you can just pay for the game again.
Prices haven't risen all that much in the last 15 years. Here's an interesting article from 2004 talking about how the low price expectation in the video game market is mostly the fault of publishers who have not increased prices. Things have not changed at all.
While we're looking at our own backyard, corporations are looking at a billion-dollar industry. No industry that generates the kind of sales that games do is going to remain pure, fresh and clean. There's immense amounts of relatively free money to be made through market and consumer manipulation. And corporations, shitty people that they are, have only one interest, make as much money as possible.
So they hire people to do studies and they hire consultants to tell them how to implement said studies and they check that box on their shareholder annual report.
It isn't about making entertainment or providing you with fun. You're a component of an integer in a Powerpoint presentation.
I'm kind of wondering what extra costs we're even referring to here. It's not like the previous title released a decade ago.. So, inflation, I guess?
I think there is an underlying perception that some believe is "economic truth" that since a loaf of bread cost "x" in 2000 and it costs "x+y" in 2017, everything else should follow the same pattern (never mind that wages, especially minimum wages don't... but that's a different discussion )
When applied to game prices it ignores the explosion in the market that for example, made 100K players in an MMO in 2000 a success where that would be a colossal failure in 2017.
Game prices have remained relatively the same simply because the volume of sales, without and equal volume of costs associated with the increased sales, has exploded. But there seems to be this casual folk wisdom going around that the prices should be higher because you know, bread costs more.
Then the next step is to posit that we the consumers are cheap bastards and we need to be tricked into paying what we should be paying. Sure keep the box price at $69.99 just like 10 years ago but since we should be paying more (see above) the companies need to add microtransactions and loot boxes so they can charge that $99.99 average which is what they really "should be" charging.
These things, expressed in simple twitter-friendly one liners, is what I see posted over and over again in any internet post trying to defend shady business practices in game we would otherwise want to play.
Yes, the gaming audience in general has enjoyed substantial and sustained growth over the past decade, from what I've seen from entities like the ESA. And I remember a time new titles only cost 50 USD, actually. So box costs have increased, despite the transition to electronic purchases eliminating a substantial amount of the manufacturing and transportation costs of selling copies. All this contributes to your point.
Not only eliminating the manufacturing and transportation costs, but frequently eliminating the wholesale/retail markup. No need to cut in Gamestop if your customer just downloads directly from you.
I remember when the option to buy digital first came around, digital was always cheaper than buying the box version because of the saved money from cutting the middle man.. what ever happened to that? Now the cost is the same all around unless you go to a site that happens to be having a sale.
Don't get me wrong either, I'm not against a company making money or the employees making money but there needs to be a balance and obviously this is not the balance.
I remember when digital was meant to stop issues with games being launched having bugs. Instead we got more bugs as developers thought they could just release a patch down the line. Once we had a balance, subscriptions etc, but gaming has become as monetized as casino fruit machines.
The funny thing is back in the day of arcades we used to say to our parents, "I am not gambling, no they are not one armed bandit games". Well now they are, and the fat guy behind the cash for tokens counter are the developers of SW Battlefront (EA) or Shadows of War (Warner Bros).
I expect we'll see a lot more of this "Buy the game; now buy the game again" design. Shadow of War also uses a similar design. Yes, you can grind and grind to get what comes in the loot boxes or, you know, you can just pay for the game again.
Prices haven't risen all that much in the last 15 years. Here's an interesting article from 2004 talking about how the low price expectation in the video game market is mostly the fault of publishers who have not increased prices. Things have not changed at all.
While we're looking at our own backyard, corporations are looking at a billion-dollar industry. No industry that generates the kind of sales that games do is going to remain pure, fresh and clean. There's immense amounts of relatively free money to be made through market and consumer manipulation. And corporations, shitty people that they are, have only one interest, make as much money as possible.
So they hire people to do studies and they hire consultants to tell them how to implement said studies and they check that box on their shareholder annual report.
It isn't about making entertainment or providing you with fun. You're a component of an integer in a Powerpoint presentation.
CNN is fake news, i really wouldn't take anything they say seriously.
EA locked the entire progression behind loot boxes? i knew Battlefront's 2 situation was bad, but not this bad...
I will keep track of reviews and many people's opinions for the first year to see how the game matures before even considering paying for this game.
Everything seems to indicate this will be one less game in my library.
It costs i think around 1000 pts to get a loot box, a single match will net you around 150 pts, so you can get a loot box every 2 or 3 hours, you have to have gained a certain amount of loot boxes in order to unlock the ability to use more than a single ability, which is why it encourages people to buy loot boxes because it takes a significant amount of time to do it through gameplay, and in the game progression is literally the power gained from the number of loot boxes you have and being able to upgrade abilities from things you can only really gain from loot boxes.
Comments
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
This was bound to happen sooner or later because --->EA
It's unfortunate that Disney gave exclusive game rights for Star Wars to this company but many people knew they were testing the waters with their cash shop in SWTOR and what is happening now is the result.
Are companies greedy? Hell yes, but we are paying low prices for our entertainment at the moment, we sure as hell aren't victims, just cheap.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Yes, I think that gamers should not support pay-to-win style monetization. Yes, I would not mind that some of my arguments might compel others to not support pay-to-win style monetization. But, beyond those two admissions, I would prefer to leave the matter to individual sense and preference.
Furthermore, I don't feel like we necessarily need to apply the acid test of objectivity claims to this discussion. It doesn't require any great leap of faith to concede that there is some demonstrable bad and some demonstrable good on each side of this issue. I do agree, for example, that DLC is often likely to cause fragmenting of playerbase. I also agree that online games are likely to suffer acutely from lack of player partners/player adversaries or even merely the perception of that predicament, and that fragmentation could potentially lead to either of those conditions.
Conversely, is it not easy to believe that the gambling aspect of those lootboxes causes harm to many individuals, and that if the exploitation of that harm is a design decision then it is highly unscrupulous? Or that publishers are likely to want to push the boundaries beyond what even you call acceptable monetization to a new market model where they can perceive even more obscenely increased profits?
Where you ask what will replace it, I ask where will it stop?
I realize that I might appear to be skirting your main point against me, that I don't properly recognize that paying money for any type of progression (expansion, DLC, the like) is inherently a pay-to-win type transaction equivalent to any other type of pay-to-win transaction (gear or game currency). So I'll answer that charge by simply suggesting that you are missing the difference between course distinctions and fine ones.
I am not ethically concerned with the type of content where one can advance their characters in added new environments, in new battlegrounds, in new worlds; because those type of spaces are an expansion of the fictional dream that is the very point of our gaming, a profound appeal to the worth not only our characters but to the imagination of the players themselves. That there are new more powerful swords and robust chainmaille--or whatever genre equivalent you prefer--should be purely ancillary to the profound challenges that games proffer to us.
And buying a lootbox for an RNG roll at becoming more powerful is coarseness exemplified, diminishing the meaning of challenge, and trivializing the soul and essence of good gameplay--or even more importantly, good video game gameplay!
EDIT- https://www.google.com/amp/s/kotaku.com/5479698/what-your-60-really-buys/amp
There's the data I mentioned. Again, it's old, but I'm at work and don't have time to do an hour long research for more recent data. I'm open to reviewing anything more recent.
When MMOs began the CEO's were fans of the genre, they wanted to create a new world for gaming. That time is long past and as a former EA CEO has said we want to make games your mum could play. It became all about maximising market and money for many years now. I remember when fans were employed as company reps, in game stewards; who does that now? Maybe some Indies still do?
Also, it doesn't mean what I got out of it is the truth, I just haven't seen anyone with better data.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Gamerant's article seemingly also offers evidence that the bloated costs of producing a game is largely self-inflicted. The Witcher 3 cost 4 times what W2 cost to develop, but the article then goes on to assert that it's the marketing and associated production costs that cause the profit margins to shrink despite the Witcher 3 earning almost 4 times the revenue it cost to develop the game in just the first two weeks. And, despite all this in the article, CD Projekt Red still didn't include such microtransactions because, again, they didn't have to: quality begets profits.
That gamerant's article also specifically talks about large studios, not indie efforts or crowdfunding titles. I'm not sure I see where the article is offering good support of the idea that microtransactions are required to turn a profit. They're simply another avenue that these publishers have found to push on gamers.
So yeah, if 100k people used to buy games (obviously not an accurate number) and now 1 million people buy games (not an accurate number) then companies are making more money than ever before.
But as I keep saying these are large, publicly traded companies. They don't just sit there looking at what's coming in and saying "well geez guyz, we're making ever so much money, we can just consider ourselves a success!".
No, they are saying "1 million people buy games now therefore the market shows us that we can expect to make this much money because more people are buying games which means let's beat it!"
That's how it works. If the know that they can make x amount of dollars because of increased sales then that's the new normal to beat.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/A survey of over 4000 developers from gamasutra in 2014 actually showed the average salary decreased 2 percent from the prior year.
https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/221533/Game_Developer_Salary_Survey_2014_The_results_are_in.php
More recently, from a Develop survey in 2016: "It may not be as high as 2013’s average of £34,183 but it’s a significant rise from last year’s result – and our all-time low – of £31,882. It should be noted these are the median averages in order to ensure high earners and low-income indies did not distort the overall results."
http://www.develop-online.net/analysis/develop-salary-survey-average-dev-wage-rises-to-33-800/0216034
So it seems that per that survey, tracking from 2013 to 2016, there's no strong evidence support the idea that the average wage per employee has increased enough to put a huge strain on a publisher's bottom line.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Those things are not cost-efficient when 90% of your audience won't even be able to use it for anything beyond taking screenshots. And, good forbid, you spend time on high-def graphics that aren't even indicative of the final offered product (Watch Dogs?). When AAA publishers are pulling that kind of crap, they don't get a whole lot of sympathy from many of us reference a complaint about increased development costs.
I remember when the option to buy digital first came around, digital was always cheaper than buying the box version because of the saved money from cutting the middle man.. what ever happened to that? Now the cost is the same all around unless you go to a site that happens to be having a sale.
Don't get me wrong either, I'm not against a company making money or the employees making money but there needs to be a balance and obviously this is not the balance.
Unless there is a huge money sink in this process, these studios are all making bank ignoring those games that flop which are few and far between.
IMO the most of the large developers are getting very greedy with all the DLC and now the loot box syndrome. They are squeezing every cent they can out of these games. I really have no problem with them making money, but when they introduce the GAMBLING aspect they have gone too far.
So if they put these RNG loot boxes in a game they deserve every rotten review they get because of them. I am all for getting gambling taxes piled on their profit margins because it is exactly that. I have yet to see any decent counter to the gambling argument in any thread I have seen. That includes this board and many others.
Sorry MikeB, but your article is just a lot of hot air and I would not be very proud that your name is attached to that.
It IS reality but it's perfectly fine to be annoyed with that reality and say "fuck you EA, I ain't buying your spin."
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Plenty of classics and other things in life to enjoy.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
The Watch Dogs fiasco is downright scamming as far as I'm concerned. Screenshots from a game should represent how the actual game looks. Imagine listening to a song and finding out the actual album you bought doesn't sound like that at all. Or watching a movie trailer to find out the footage used isn't in the actual movie, I could go on.
I am not sure about not incorporating stuff hardly anyone uses. Should developers stop making high level dungeons and content because 95% won't see it for instance? Should developers spend time and resources on easy modes in games when we already know how to play? Tutorials? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but I find it a slippery slope. Some might argue that these high graphical features are part of the game too.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Costs have gone up 15X on average and revenue only 5X, just look at the average price for a PS2 game compared to a PS3 or PS4 game, you'll be amazed.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Prices haven't risen all that much in the last 15 years. Here's an interesting article from 2004 talking about how the low price expectation in the video game market is mostly the fault of publishers who have not increased prices. Things have not changed at all.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/29/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/index.htm
While we're looking at our own backyard, corporations are looking at a billion-dollar industry. No industry that generates the kind of sales that games do is going to remain pure, fresh and clean. There's immense amounts of relatively free money to be made through market and consumer manipulation. And corporations, shitty people that they are, have only one interest, make as much money as possible.
So they hire people to do studies and they hire consultants to tell them how to implement said studies and they check that box on their shareholder annual report.
It isn't about making entertainment or providing you with fun. You're a component of an integer in a Powerpoint presentation.
I remember when digital was meant to stop issues with games being launched having bugs. Instead we got more bugs as developers thought they could just release a patch down the line. Once we had a balance, subscriptions etc, but gaming has become as monetized as casino fruit machines.
The funny thing is back in the day of arcades we used to say to our parents, "I am not gambling, no they are not one armed bandit games". Well now they are, and the fat guy behind the cash for tokens counter are the developers of SW Battlefront (EA) or Shadows of War (Warner Bros).
I will keep track of reviews and many people's opinions for the first year to see how the game matures before even considering paying for this game.
Everything seems to indicate this will be one less game in my library.