"The flops are piling up for video game titans" - Daily Herald
- Thread starter Killer
- Start date
It almost seemed like a typo, but it seems serious. https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-03-19-microsoft-hiring-for-a-major-xbox-aaaa-console-title
I’m really curious how the streaming model that will be the inevitable future of games distribution will impact developers and publishers.
How would that even work? Platform owners (sony, ms) pay a flat fee to the developer for the rights to have the game on their service? Bonuses paid out for certain numbers of streams/downloads?
How would that even work? Platform owners (sony, ms) pay a flat fee to the developer for the rights to have the game on their service? Bonuses paid out for certain numbers of streams/downloads?
Outside of fortnite, how many f2p games have truly cause disruption in the market?
Idk, maybe it just me, but there isn't a game I've played this gen that I've paid $60 for that I wouldn't have also paid, say, $70 for, and if that extra $10 up front keeps mtx and lootboxes at bay, or at least to a minimum, the I'm all for it.
Idk, maybe it just me, but there isn't a game I've played this gen that I've paid $60 for that I wouldn't have also paid, say, $70 for, and if that extra $10 up front keeps mtx and lootboxes at bay, or at least to a minimum, the I'm all for it.
Yeah... Why does a massive corporation have to assume that the next game in the series will be better and gain more cultural traction than what is arguably the biggest hit of all time? Couldn't they be slightly more realistic with their expectations? Isn't it slightly risky to just assume you will always make more money than the year prior?
Most publisher execs would get massive bonuses with a 40m seller. It's a huge number no matter what franchise you're talking about. Nobody should consider it to be a disappointment, unless they have a terrible business strategy.
Most publisher execs would get massive bonuses with a 40m seller. It's a huge number no matter what franchise you're talking about. Nobody should consider it to be a disappointment, unless they have a terrible business strategy.
Do you have proof that it would lead to lower sales? I'm pretty sure $60 games do consistently better than $20-40 games. Who's to say that $70 games would suddenly flop? Gaming is a far cheaper form of entertainment than anyone ever gives it credit for, and a small increase in prices wouldn't change that.
There is such a stark contrast between Japanese game budgets and US budgets. I feel like the Japanese business model has been much more sustainable as they seem to know their target audiences much better, as opposed to shooting to the moon and trying to get everyone on board with the next gaming fad so they can cash in ASAP. The budget in most Japanese games reflect that. Games like Neir and Persona can sell 1 million copies and be considered a huge success. EA being disappointed by 7.5 million sales of Battlefield just shows how unsustainable their practices have been.
Because the problem this article is talking about is games underperforming at full price. Why do you think BFV being $70 instead of $60 would have led to higher sales? Why do you think that revenue streams like lootboxes and other microtransactions would suddenly disappear because the sticker price rose $10?
This is basic stuff, when you raise prices you are inevitably price some consumers out of the market. In an industry where prices already lower within a matter of months in order to remain competitive and move units, you think that raising the base price will have no affect on sales? You arent thinking things through.
This is basic stuff, when you raise prices you are inevitably price some consumers out of the market. In an industry where prices already lower within a matter of months in order to remain competitive and move units, you think that raising the base price will have no affect on sales? You arent thinking things through.
I never said increasing price would lead to higher sales, I said that a small price increase would generate more revenue upfront without having any significant affect on sales. As I asked before, how many games have people paid $60 for this gen that they'd pass on at $70 for? I can't think of anything personally.
Halo 5 is a failure for more reasons than just sales. It sold less than most of the other titles in the franchise not only that it's just not a very good game that has hurt the halo name. I know I am not the only one that is incredibly wary of 343 handling of halo and how they dropped the ball in so many ways with it.
The market would strongly disagree. If companies could raise the base price of games, they'd do it.
The issue is just a chain of factors:
1) Gamers want bigger, prettier, longer games. People (like Jim Sterling for example) can say nobody asked for that, but they would be wrong. Digital Foundry exists to literally check minuscule shit like pixels and grass shading and whatever, and we should all remember the dumb controversy over puddles in Spiderman. If studios could make this shit cheaper, they would, but they would get blasted by dumb gamer rage for every compromise.
2) Gamers won't pay more than $60 for a base game, and today, often pay less through deals and coupons and all that. And that price is like 20 years old. The $60 today doesn't even go as far as it did back then.
3) So you can't cut costs or raise prices on everybody. So then you supplement the revenue with DLC and special editions (which effectively raise the base price for some customers who wanna pay extra).
That's how we get to today. Gamers are why companies can't raise prices, and they bitch like crazy if devs cut costs too.
Personally, I'm fine with DLC and MTX and all that. It's just a good way for cheap people like me to access games without paying more. I already budget pretty well, but an across the board price hike would just make that harder.
The issue is just a chain of factors:
1) Gamers want bigger, prettier, longer games. People (like Jim Sterling for example) can say nobody asked for that, but they would be wrong. Digital Foundry exists to literally check minuscule shit like pixels and grass shading and whatever, and we should all remember the dumb controversy over puddles in Spiderman. If studios could make this shit cheaper, they would, but they would get blasted by dumb gamer rage for every compromise.
2) Gamers won't pay more than $60 for a base game, and today, often pay less through deals and coupons and all that. And that price is like 20 years old. The $60 today doesn't even go as far as it did back then.
3) So you can't cut costs or raise prices on everybody. So then you supplement the revenue with DLC and special editions (which effectively raise the base price for some customers who wanna pay extra).
That's how we get to today. Gamers are why companies can't raise prices, and they bitch like crazy if devs cut costs too.
Personally, I'm fine with DLC and MTX and all that. It's just a good way for cheap people like me to access games without paying more. I already budget pretty well, but an across the board price hike would just make that harder.
