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
There are many who do feel creating raid content that only 5% of the player base will complete is a waste of resources. I see the logic in it, as you're spending man hours painstakingly crafting the level and encounter designs, tweaking and balancing them on the extreme end, all while 95% of your base is standing on the sidelines going "gee, wonder what that content's like, I'll never experience it."
The increased cost of true development (before marketing) has largely come from the increased time to create all the pretty, high-resolution visuals used in these games. If you spend extra time doing that for something the vast majority will never experience, either because you've made the content itself or the system requirements too extreme, you have no one to blame but yourself when you can't recoup the costs of producing said product. Wildstar learned the hard way how utterly fruitless it was to focus so closely on such a small portion of it's audience.
But boy, doesn't pretty pictures and epic bosses make for some great marketing hype?
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.
It would be, IMO, a bit more acceptable (or less scummy) if the game was Free to Play. The amount of time required to get from point A to point B should never be altered on purpose to make spending extra money look like a more convenient solution. EA, as always, is just a bunch of shameless scammers.
It reminds me of For Honor. Ubi did the same thing there. You get to pay full price for a game, and then they also make you go insane by altering the gameplay, but they let you bypass the grind for extra cash.
I really can't see how people really can support this practices by paying for the game. Companies have the numbers. No matter how infamous these practices are, if they see people buying the game, they will keep making shitty decisions to benefit only themselves and say "screw the customers".
Definitely curious now that EA has listened to the feedback that it was given, and made some fairly substantial changes to the loot crate system. I'm not expecting people who are anti-EA to admit that EA actually did listen, and make some appropriate changes, and actually be commended for listening to the fans. But I'm curious what people have to say....
Definitely curious now that EA has listened to the feedback that it was given, and made some fairly substantial changes to the loot crate system. I'm not expecting people who are anti-EA to admit that EA actually did listen, and make some appropriate changes, and actually be commended for listening to the fans. But I'm curious what people have to say....
Basically they harpooned all the whales (who have already opened everything already) the 'regular' people all quit and populations cratered after about 5 days and now theyre trying to salvage something by doing this.
Donbt be surprised that if by some miracle a few people do go back and once these guys figure out the 'sweet spot' theyll go back to monetizing crates and the 'benevolence' shown here is quashed some.
Definitely curious now that EA has listened to the feedback that it was given, and made some fairly substantial changes to the loot crate system. I'm not expecting people who are anti-EA to admit that EA actually did listen, and make some appropriate changes, and actually be commended for listening to the fans. But I'm curious what people have to say....
Basically they harpooned all the whales (who have already opened everything already) the 'regular' people all quit and populations cratered after about 5 days and now theyre trying to salvage something by doing this.
Donbt be surprised that if by some miracle a few people do go back and once these guys figure out the 'sweet spot' theyll go back to monetizing crates and the 'benevolence' shown here is quashed some.
Comments
The increased cost of true development (before marketing) has largely come from the increased time to create all the pretty, high-resolution visuals used in these games. If you spend extra time doing that for something the vast majority will never experience, either because you've made the content itself or the system requirements too extreme, you have no one to blame but yourself when you can't recoup the costs of producing said product. Wildstar learned the hard way how utterly fruitless it was to focus so closely on such a small portion of it's audience.
But boy, doesn't pretty pictures and epic bosses make for some great marketing hype?
It reminds me of For Honor. Ubi did the same thing there. You get to pay full price for a game, and then they also make you go insane by altering the gameplay, but they let you bypass the grind for extra cash.
I really can't see how people really can support this practices by paying for the game. Companies have the numbers. No matter how infamous these practices are, if they see people buying the game, they will keep making shitty decisions to benefit only themselves and say "screw the customers".
Definitely curious now that EA has listened to the feedback that it was given, and made some fairly substantial changes to the loot crate system. I'm not expecting people who are anti-EA to admit that EA actually did listen, and make some appropriate changes, and actually be commended for listening to the fans. But I'm curious what people have to say....
https://www.ea.com/en-gb/games/starwars/battlefront/battlefront-2/news/progression-oct-2017
Donbt be surprised that if by some miracle a few people do go back and once these guys figure out the 'sweet spot' theyll go back to monetizing crates and the 'benevolence' shown here is quashed some.
Sarcasm for the win!