I mean, they've not been wholly immune to this.
Amazing that that's all it will take. Such a fantastic game.
A $30 low budget, low risk 3D platformer that they're also not bothering to market in any way at all. MS just isn't good at this whole single player thing.
AAA SP games either need to scale down so their games are as ridiculously expensive to make, or they need to charge more for them. SP games can do well for themselves and we've seen it with recent Japanese releases. If publishers can't make a profit off a SP game with a $60 Price Tag and DLC/Season pass then something has to change with these games. I don't think the answer is making less SP games.
Of course the big controversy with this comes from EA backing out of the Visceral Star Wars game. In the end I'm not too surprised on this because I've yet to get a good SP experience from EA this gen yet. That's just me tho.
I always feel like the hardware makers have to take the hits, expanding the audience and making them happy. Sony focuses on SP games, and the third parties handle the gaas games. Nintendo to a lesser degree.
MS is going "fuck it" I guess? And just making gaas games as well?
I remember this debate at gaf.Every single one of them makes GAAS games. A GAAS game is any game with post-launch dlc, so GT Sport and Breath Of The Wild are both GAAS games, for instance.
I remember this debate at gaf.
Persona 5 I guess is a GAAS game. They put out DLC costumes after. Gravity rush 2? GAAS game. You can download a free costume a few weeks after. Infamous: Second Son? GAAS game because the expansion pack First light. Bloodborne? GAAAAAAS.
There's also the streaming / YouTube concern. Many single-player stories can be watched in their entirety on YouTube. They can also be successfully pirated.
...yes?
I'm not sure why you're acting like your previous Bloodborne being GAAS means it's bad or something.
Take it up with the games industry then, that's how they use the term.Because it's kind of ridiculous to classify something with anything that has DLC as GAAS.
Because it's kind of ridiculous to classify something with anything that has DLC as GAAS.
I don't hate GAAS games. I just don't think it's properly used.Take it up with the games industry then, that's how they use the term.
Maybe you should just admit that the term "GAAS" incites an irrational level of distaste in you for no real reason?
"She was giving these massive presentations on the story, themes," said one person who worked on Ragtag. "EA executives are like, 'FIFA Ultimate Team makes a billion dollars a year.' Where's your version of that?"
Yeah, I still do not understand how media still critices GoW Ascension. Media have destroyed this game when it came out. Such a shame, it wasn't so bad after all.I mean, they've not been wholly immune to this.
God of War Ascension debuted at less than half what God of War 3 did in the UK, despite them working on it for three years.
Now, an obvious counter would be "The game was only rated an 80 on Metacritic while God of War 3 was rated a 92", but then this speaks to having to make Game of the Year quality level game to succeed at big budget AAA gaming, whereas games like Rainbow Six Siege (73 Metacritic), Dying Light (74 Metacritic), and Ghost Recon Wildlands (70 Metacritic) are some of the best selling games this generation.
I believe the issue is that high quality cinematics are a big standard and gamers don't want to them to be reduced. Creating them, voice acting, script, many people planning and executing... lots of salary payments not to mention marketing campaign costs to advertise those cinematics.
I wish more casual gamers gave a chance to more gameplay-oriented games in other genres than "most popular ones", but of course they are lesser known.
They already quite did : with collectors and digital premium content.
But no one would take the risk to raise the standard price, this would cause a huge drawback in sales.
But the most recent high rated, most fun (for me atleast) and most definitely will be most selling game is one with gibirish voice acting and generic story. Not saying it's low quality or low budget but maybe they should refocus on why we play games in the first place. It's gameplay.
But the most recent high rated, most fun (for me atleast) and most definitely will be most selling game is one with gibirish voice acting and generic story. Not saying it's low quality or low budget but maybe they should refocus on why we play games in the first place. It's gameplay.
this is kind of hilarious... GOTY is either zelda or mario basically.
still want to know where everybody is getting this "gamers demand massive graphical fidelity" thing from. I can't recall a time when the best looking game has ever been the highest selling one.
But the most recent high rated, most fun (for me atleast) and most definitely will be most selling game is one with gibirish voice acting and generic story. Not saying it's low quality or low budget but maybe they should refocus on why we play games in the first place. It's gameplay.
I mean not the best of the best but COD, Battlefront, GTA and Destiny are all very good looking games.still want to know where everybody is getting this "gamers demand massive graphical fidelity" thing from. I can't recall a time when the best looking game has ever been the highest selling one.
It's not really a case of having the best graphics, but rather not having what would be considered to be bad graphics... and the bar for what graphics are considered acceptable for these types of games keeps climbing. The best selling games may not have the best graphics, but they tend to either have graphics that sit in the upper-echelon, or are serviced based games. Many (such as Destiny) represent both at the same time.
Unimpressive graphics, or a clear lack of budget often hampers a game's ability to draw hype and awareness right out of the gate. There are countless examples of games that saw interest plummet when revealed to not be graphically up to expectations (Recore, Marvel vs Capcom Infinite, Crackdown 3... hell even Gran Turismo Sport upon reveal). Even when talking about games on Nintendo's weaker hardware, it's typically the games that are amongst the most visually impressive that gather the most attention (which just happens to usually be Nintendo's own offerings).
I mean not the best of the best but COD, Battlefront, GTA and Destiny are all very good looking games.
right but the way theyve continually described and contextualized it is about the best. there's a difference bad graphics are different from ones that are par for the course. unimpressive graphics are def an issue but as for your examples: Recore wasnt a AAA game, MvC had issues with specific character faces, not general graphics, Crackdown 3 is a stylized game, not to mention one that was basically a tech demo, and GT Sport was being judged on unfinal code.