Discussion in 'Video Games' started by Arcinferno, Jan 22, 2018.
I think the key is to be smarter and reign in the budgets. There are devs are making great single player linear story driven games with smaller budgets. I mean a game is $60 - calculate how much you want to make/ forecast what you would like to sell - then set a budget based on this? Maybe I am missing something obvious here.
The problem with rising the price is that people are already waiting for sales. And if those sales don't come, that won't suddenly mean people will buy the game.
There's obviously a few exeptions, but those games already don't get discounted often (Nintendo, GTA, COD, Fifa ect.)
Amy Hennig is just spewing the same doomsday scenario every other gaming outlet has done so every time a game is cancelled.
It’s becoming utterly tiring to see a defense of publishers all the time and justify morally wrongful practices and say it is to recoup costs. No, loot box is not a necessary evil. It’s wrong.
Publishers are in it for profit. Publishers keeps generating even more profit. Publishers are notoriously bad at handling projects and sinks far more money than what is needed to make a game. They need to handle themselves, we don’t have to suffer to their schemes just to play games.
Amy seems like she took an L for life. I know the Star Wars snafu must have hurt, but you don’t have to become a mouthpiece for publishers and keep on circulating the same fallacious arguments to justify monetization. It wouldn’t even have helped the Star Wars game !
I guess we just gotta kinda really limit ourselves to the most finite interpretation.
Nirolak in the "Lessons from 2017" thread: a lot of big companies would rather blow up the budget to make sure their game in some way sets a standard to consumers that prevents competition from entering the market.
Man the "but Hellblade, but Nier, But Persona" posts are so tiring. I feel like people just argue for the sake of it and they already know what the truth is.
If nobody wants to make smaller games, and just bite off huge chunks in hopes of making vast amounts of cash, nobody is telling them not to get rid of their golden geese here, but instead of investing big in a dangerous AAA SP game, make 3 or 4 smaller games using their already-there technology with smaller teams, and see if they can't find a break out success with good ideas rather than throwing huge amounts of cash at it and hoping it sticks.
Or they can just keep trying to push their luck in AAA SP space and see what happens, but my *guess* would be if you could figure out how to produce these games cheaper, control their costs, have smaller team sizes, and ask for less, then they can produce more in that span, and hope for a breakout success of one or more games rather than betting the farm on something big that underperforms in a huge way. It's just bet hedging.
Eventually being open-world, or having MP won't even be a silver bullet anymore. Then what do we do? Might be a good idea to try and figure out how to reliably have controlled-cost versions of these projects without just continually raising the bar to the point where you can't save yourself down the road, and I personally think the AA space should be explored for that.
But that's just like, my opinion.
I understand what Amy is saying but if anything, watching gameplay videos on youtube has led to me buying MORE single player games than I already do. I'll watch the opening into, maybe 30 minutes of gameplay and sometimes, the game gets me. Most recently was Hellblade. I watched the first 45 minutes or so and purchased it that night and started playing the next day and completing it a few days later.
Consumers need to check their entitlement and understand how budgets are handled and stop expecting the best thing ever while also expecting that best thing ever to dip to $20 or go up on YouTube within a month of release.
Yeah, pubs do dumb money-grubbing shit, and I call them out on it a lot - but don't dismiss all of this as a simple defense because she's mad a game she was working on got canned.
I can only think of Uncharted TLL and Mario Odyssey.
Still though, those were fantastic games, and with a bit more of a push I think they could have done better. Both Prey and TEW had next to no push right up too release.
Bethesda are struggling most.
The fact of the matter though in the mid 90's the average price of a game was about $55, that average has moved very little. Games should be $89.99 right now in the US just based upon inflation, that doesn't even account for how much more costly it is to make games now. The reality is publishers and developers are getting screwed financially by sticking to this $59.99 standard, the only way they know how to recoup some additional earnings without raising prices and causing a huge problem is by implementing transactions in their games.
If things keep going the way they are a lot of companies are just going to shut down or move into something else, it's becoming financially unsustainable and if nothing changes will result in a crash.
Why does the 60$ price point need to be fixed? In Germany, most games have a luanch price point of 70€ nowadays and e.g. if you want to have the complete Fire Emblem Fates game, you needed to pay 90€ as well (for a single cartidge). You need to market it properly of course. I wouldn't have bought a game from Mrs. platformers-are-outdated, anyway, I require full focus on gameplay, not videogame stories.
I do think this is a problem created by the video game industry and not the consumer.
What she's saying makes a lot of sense to me. Like you can invest $100m in a single player game that might decent amount of profit... or you could invest the same money in a multiplayer title that could hit the jackpot and become ludicrously profitable.
If I think about the story based games (or let's say "experience based games") that I liked, almost none of them have super high production values. Life Is Strange, The Walking Dead, Abzu, Journey, Pony Island, The Stanley Parable, Katawa Shoujo... all mid or low budget games, and all manage to tell much better stories than a random Uncharted or Resident Evil. Yes, there are exceptions like The Last Of Us, but in general I think story based games simply need to keep an eye on the budget and pick a price accordingly.
People don't want to pay full price for a game that's over in a few hours and they won't replay (because no one replays games)? Fine, let's sell at half price. It's the reason why streaming is so popular, why buy a DVD/BR for 10-20€ and litter your house with plastic crap when you can just stream the movie once? Collectors will buy the disc, everyone else is fine with streaming.
Think about writing better stories instead of rendering every hair on Nathan Drake's ass.
It's still greatly on life support.
If I recall, Resident Evil 7 was a pretty successful single player game last year. Relatively linear too.
Well (I'm almost sure I'm mistaken when I say this but here it goes anyway), games should be in the first place an interactive and fun experience to the player, meaning it should promised something that we as costumers are not going to have by only watching the game.
If linear single player games are failing at sales is because they're not providing that singular experience that separates the gaming one from the other entertaining industries.
I dunno. I'm having a hard time believing that games that are either single player, story driven, linear or all 3 are having a hard time selling.
Look at Xenoblade 2, Yakuza 0, Nier Automata, FFXV, Persona 5, Mario Odyssey, BotW.
Yes, I know with sales at launch you can get games for $60 or slightly cheaper in Canada still.
Anyway games are more expensive in other markets. Look at Japan, companies can charge a premium based on name alone like FFXV at launch which was about 9000y with tax at launch. And that is the price without the season pass too. Yes I know the price eventually sunk to the bottom of the ocean but still the point stands.
This is a very sad reality for me. Especially because Arkane Studios is putting out the best FPS in many years, and they just don't sell.