Metro Exodus returns to Steam on February 15th

Sabin

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,092
It isn’t. There are missing features on the Epic Store and it’s nicer to have your games in one place. But if Epic can force Valve to lower their cut that will be a huge benefit to gamers and developers. And a lower cut will actually improve the chances of all games coming to Steam.
You mean poor struggling publisher like Ubisoft or Deepsilver?

Im also happy that Epic saved them. Now we only have to wait until the wealth trickles down and benefit us costumer.
 

Khrn

Member
Oct 27, 2017
536
You mean poor struggling publisher like Ubisoft or Deepsilver?
I think there's a big difference in doing well financially (which Ubi and DS are, of course) and struggling to make a game profitable. People complain about how MTX, DLC, and exclusivity deals are ruining games, but they're also well aware that releasing a game at $60 isn't enough to turn a profit. The fact that most publishers are doing well, but only some games are, at the expense of all developers--who have to crunch to meet impossible deadlines because they have higher chance to sell--means things are not well. But boycotting won't change things either.

And it's complicated because the solution isn't up to customers. You can't just go "hey, we're increasing the price to $100 and never lowering it, but we promise no more MTX or exclusivity deals," because people won't be able to afford that, and the games will sell even less. I don't know what can be done, but I feel like the best I can do is to support the devs and games I want to wherever they are, and hope for the best.
 

ShinUltramanJ

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,787
People complain about how MTX, DLC, and exclusivity deals are ruining games, but they're also well aware that releasing a game at $60 isn't enough to turn a profit.
It’s not? Maybe these publishers need to scale back their development then? It’s their choice to create these AAA budget monsters that aren’t required.
 

Khrn

Member
Oct 27, 2017
536
It’s not? Maybe these publishers need to scale back their development then? It’s their choice to create these AAA budget monsters that aren’t required.
Far from it. It's been a while since selling one million at $60 was enough for AAA games. Even more because they go on sale really fast, which means they have to sell more for less.

As for not being required, maybe it's not for you, but for a lot of people it is. Imagine asking fans of Call of Duty, GTA V, RDR 2, Death Stranding, Marvel's Spider-Man, Gears, The Witcher 3, etc to not have these games look how they look, being polished as much as they are, and more. AA games would sell way more otherwise.
 

ShinUltramanJ

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,787
Far from it. It's been a while since selling one million at $60 was enough for AAA games. Even more because they go on sale really fast, which means they have to sell more for less.

As for not being required, maybe it's not for you, but for a lot of people it is. Imagine asking fans of Call of Duty, GTA V, RDR 2, Death Stranding, Marvel's Spider-Man, Gears, The Witcher 3, etc to not have these games look how they look, being polished as much as they are, and more. AA games would sell way more otherwise.
EA’s Star Wars is a AAA release that has done very well, and all without MTX money.

Going on sale really fast is the fault of the publisher - not the customer. Once again EA’s Star Wars game has noticeably been handled differently then past AAA EA games in that they haven’t cut the price in half two weeks a after release. They’ve been smarter with how they handled this release and it just goes to show that you can release a $60 AAA game without relying on MTX, and be successful.
 

Khrn

Member
Oct 27, 2017
536
EA’s Star Wars is a AAA release that has done very well, and all without MTX money.

Going on sale really fast is the fault of the publisher - not the customer. Once again EA’s Star Wars game has noticeably been handled differently then past AAA EA games in that they haven’t cut the price in half two weeks a after release. They’ve been smarter with how they handled this release and it just goes to show that you can release a $60 AAA game without relying on MTX, and be successful.
I'm not saying you can't--and Jedi Fallen Order is one of my favorite games of last year, as someone who is a huge fan of story-driven singleplayer games (and why I'm posting on a Metro Exodus thread to begin with). I should've expressed myself better, but what I meant was $60 AAA games are increasingly harder to be profitable if they aren't as popular as Star Wars, GTA, or Call of Duty.

That isn't the "fault" of the customer in the sense that it's their responsibility, but the market adapts to behaviors whether we like what they do or not. Can't make profits at $60 but can't increase the price? Season passes. Customers didn't like it? MTX that affects gameplay. Didn't like that as well? Optional MTX released constantly. PC players aren't buying as much? Take the cost away from them and make exclusive deals with another store. And it goes on.

The same goes for sales: a lot of people can't afford games at $60, but others wait for a sale because they know it'll inevitably come, after the industry started doing that as much as they could for store sales, and they did that because they saw how many people bought during them.

I remember one time when a monetization designer told me this: "My job is to give the game designers the budget they need to make their content." I wish, and I hope we get to a point where more games like Metro Exodus don't need to have online segments or MTX if they don't need, and still sell well without being Star Wars.
 

Faenix1

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,644
Canada
The same goes for sales: a lot of people can't afford games at $60, but others wait for a sale because they know it'll inevitably come, after the industry started doing that as much as they could for store sales, and they did that because they saw how many people bought during them.
Nah. The industry did that to themself. People being "unable to afford $60" games has nothing to do with it.

Look at early day steam, for years it was like a race to the bottom in sales that - though it's not as bad anymore.

I can't afford every game at full price, but over the years I've had it drilled into me that if I wait a year I can get a complete version for <$40. Or if I preorder during E3 I can get games for <$50 at launch.
 

Khrn

Member
Oct 27, 2017
536
Nah. The industry did that to themself. People being "unable to afford $60" games has nothing to do with it.

Look at early day steam, for years it was like a race to the bottom in sales that - though it's not as bad anymore.

I can't afford every game at full price, but over the years I've had it drilled into me that if I wait a year I can get a complete version for <$40. Or if I preorder during E3 I can get games for <$50 at launch.
But this wouldn't have happened if sales weren't largely successful, right? And you said it yourself: you can't afford every game you want at $60, and the same goes for other people. Which is fine because it's unfair to blame people for that. And yet, in an industry where there's more and more demand for the best graphics, animation, lip sync, and ongoing support, that price tag doesn't work anymore, but it can't be raised since most aren't even paying $60 for a number of different reasons.