>Lately I’ve been playing a lot of Rainbow Six Siege. It’s really good, but I’m not feeling very optimistic about its long-term prospects.
>Siege, like any multiplayer game, will only thrive if it can form a lasting community of players.
>All of those games launched at a traditional big-budget video game price point of $60 despite having effectively no single-player.
>In the long run, the $60 price point doesn’t help publishers or the players they’re catering to. It stops communities from growing, which makes it damn hard to build anything that’ll last.
> Because of those initial price barriers, games’ communities crawl out the gate small and emaciated. When new players decide to see what the (sadly minimal) fuss is about, they have trouble finding matches to play in—especially as time goes on, and especially against players of their own skill level. So, even curious newcomers don’t stick around long.
>On top of that, the $60 entry fee is usually only the beginning. Lately, publishers have been trying to get the best of both the old-school single-transaction retail world and the brave new microtransaction and season pass world, and the result can feel like a raw fucking deal.
>Same thing with Rainbow Six: $60 for the game, and $30 for a season pass, along with an (optional) money-based unlock system. On top of the added cost, season passes often gate portions of the community from playing on certain maps, fragmenting already shrinking player bases and making it harder to find matches.
>The practice of selling post-release content—the rain of DLC, season passes, and microtransactions—can be crucial to the ongoing funding of big game studios. But by holding to outdated methods of releasing games and selling DLC, and in particular by sticking with that $60 price of admission, publishers risk doing serious harm to the long-term viability of their multiplayer-only games.
Thoughts on this, lads?
It makes sense, which is why I got the game for 30 bucks at a key site instead.
>>319587649
he's right
i'd probably have bought rainbow six siege or battlefront if they were $30 or $40, all dlc permanently included. but the facts are cost of development is far too costly to do that and there is nothing to assure the publisher that the low price will make it sell more.
>>319587649
I don't understand. People only buy multiplayer only games if they're popular. Charging $60 a pop + dlc can get you 1 million buyers who slowly trickle away but it discourages others from buying it later.
Charging $20 can get you 5 million in sales and have an active enough community that people still buy the game months or years after release.
>>319587649
I definitely agree. Multiplayer only games aren't worth buying at full price.
Not that AAA shovelware like CoD or Battlefield are any better.
I agree, you have to save some money for DEPRESSION QUEST 2 and a delicious meal at Five Guys
>>319587950
>>319587906
>>319587834
No you kiddos.
The cost of making games have increased dramatically since the 90's yet gamers are too selfish and stingy to pay more than $60 for the base game. Hence why devs have focused on DLC and microtransaction add-on's.
Players can buy the base game and have the option to buy DLC or use microtransactions and devs get rewarded for their labor. Those who buy the DLC and microtransactions basically subsidize devs so we can make a profit.
It's a win-win situation.
They shouldn't cost $40 either.
>>319587649
I'm pretty sure MAG wasn't full price when it came about.
>>319587649
A broken clock is write twice a day.
Good points, shitty greentext.
>>319588186
>players too selfish and stingy
Actually, young people are the poorest they've been since the Great Depression, dumbshit.
In my own opinion, it doesn't matter whether it's single player or multiplayer. What matters is really just the amount of hours you are getting for your money. If we look at a game like Fallout 4, you can easily spend a 100 hours on a playthrough, and probably not even finish all of the content. I think if you get more than 60 hours of entertainment (1 hour per dollar) on something, then you got your money's worth. If you compare the price of videogames to going to movie, which could cost about 10 dollars for 2 hours or so of entertainment, then paying 1 dollar for an hour of video games isn't that.
I do agree that a lot of people can't really afford 60 dollars. If a good amount of people aren't playing a multiplayer game just because they can't afford it, then you gotta really think about the pricing.
>>319588186
>The cost of making games have increased dramatically
You mean cost of marketing?
>>319588095
Is the Five Guys thing bait? They're milkshake are pretty decent
>>319588563
No, the actual cost of making games.
>>319588563
no, he does it for free
>>319588563
The cost per hour to pay a dev who could make 2d platformers during the early-mid 90's doesnt even remotely compare to the price per hour of a dev who can make AAA quality 3D games today, even when accounting for inflation.
You arent wrong that advertising has gotten out of hand in a lot of ways, but even accounting for that theres still a massive gap in development cost from then to now
>>319588186
because 60 bucks is already pretty steep for a fucking videogame.
I dont give a fuck how many billions it cost. you dont need a Hollywood budget for a videogame to be good.
And if price is such a concern, then maybe they should invest in ways to make it cheaper. cheaper to make means cheaper to buy means more units sold.
besides, no, the cost of making the game hasnt gone up THAT badly. most of what bloats AAA title budgets is all the marketing. They are advertised like fucking blockbuster movies.
Some of them, in fact, are Movies
>>319588186
>The cost of making games have increased dramatically since the 90's yet gamers are too selfish and stingy to pay more than $60 for the base game.
> yet gamers are too selfish and stingy to pay more than $60 for the base game.
>gamers
This whole sentence is a trainwreck. The labeling, the assumptions; this reeks of something a salesperson would say and not someone who's a genuine customer or target demographic.
Honestly, Siege could be worth $60, but the content they offer doesn't justify it. There's not a lot maps to start off, the unlock system is stupid, and the maps aren't exactly big to begin with. If they just added a few more maps, added a mode that allows a few more players on each team, or just get rid of the stupid microtransactions then it would have been a $60 game. It feels more like they purposely didn't add more stuff so they can release it under the guise of a season pass for the first season/update; basically a "look guys we're going to support this game for a long time" stunt.
>>319588563
Marketing had gotten ridiculous but the cost of actually making the game has increased tremendously. Just think about how much more content and complex a modern game engine, sound assets, design, etc has for even a content lite game like Star Wars : Battlefront compared to say Super Mario Bros
>>319587649
Exactly why so many recent shooters didn't and don't maintain a healthy playerbase. Titanfall, Evolve, Halo 5, and even Destiny relative to what was expected and wanted. Halo 5 was almost dead on arrival. $60 games with season passes, microtransactions and DLC out the ass. Local multiplayer and even single-player campaigns are gone in all or most of these games, publishers just keep devaluing their own product by stripping out features and content so it's no surprise people don't buy as often and when they do not as many stick around.
>>319588186
>The cost of making games have increased dramatically since the 90's
Almost half the budget goes to marketing and not the game, and when money is spent on the game it's wasted on superfluous shit like cloth physics. Publishers need to stop blowing millions and millions on marketing and making the game look pretty instead of filling it with content. They need to stop stripping out content and features while charging more.
>>319587649
If a game wants to eschew single player and be multiplayer only and still cost $60 thats perfectly fine, just make sure to give me $60 worth of multiplayer content. Same thing if a game wants to cut out its multiplayer, just make sure you give me my money's worth.
The problem comes in that we are gettign games with the same amount of multiplayer content as we were when single player campaigns still were being packed along side it.
Actual truth, from a clickbait site?
>>319588397
Slap yourself hard you fucking idiot.
>>319589095
>It feels more like they purposely didn't add more stuff so they can release it under the guise of a season pass for the first season/update
This has been going on for a while, publishers intentionally cut out or gate off content to sell it to you later.
>>319589378
>>319589271
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGRMWxg9ZcM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk717LQnpVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6sInYBCDjA
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10927473/Gollum-was-a-hoax-after-all-monster-spotted-in-China-mountains-was-actor-shooting-advertisement.html
If you want to see bad marketing. They waste the money they earn for these shit.
>>319589008
>I dont give a fuck how many billions it cost. you dont need a Hollywood budget for a videogame to be good.
sure there are games out there that are "good" that can be produced for far less, but if you are talking about AAA games with high end graphics, that shit costs money any way you look at it.
Budgets are absolutely bloated right now, but even if that was somehow magically fixed games wouldnt really get that much cheaper
>>319589560
So why does /v/ go into a frenzy over a camera angle on an ass slap animation being changed but doesn't bat an eye over literally jewing of vidya consumers?
>>319589271
>Just think about how much more content and complex a modern game engine, sound assets, design, etc has for even a content lite game like Star Wars : Battlefront compared to say Super Mario Bros
Super Mario Bros. was likely more difficult to create than Battlefront given the technology available at the time, you seem to be looking at the games as if both were being made today. There's nothing impressive about Battlefront beyond its visuals and EA/Dice likely used existing engines. The technology is magnitudes better than what was available in the 1980's.
>>319588186
content, features, etc > graphics, marketing, hollywood actors
>>319590151
They did at first but grew complacent as the practice was successful and it was futile to resist.
Sometimes retards gain some common sense and write an article as if they've had some major revelation that nobody else has before.
"Gee games are expensive with not a lot of content these days!"
Gee, I wish I could be a video game journalist, I could just use the power of saying "This thing in this video game is dumb." and "Season Passes! Am I right, fellas?"
I truly think that literally anybody could do these hack fraud's jobs and be much better at them.
>>319590151
Diversion.
Distract the angry neckbeard army if covered tits and asses so they don't focus on more important issues.
maybe if developers made good games they wouldn't have to spend a gorillion dollars on marketing shit games to hook people only to have the playerbase die after two months because, surprise surprise, the game is trash.
video games today are ran like the movie industry, spend zillions marketing just to hook people into the theater and they once they got your money it doesn't matter anymore.
>>319590002
>but if you are talking about AAA games with high end graphics, that shit costs money any way you look at it.
Not tens-to-hundreds of millions of dollars. Stop hiring expensive voice actors, stop spending tens of millions on marketing. Games don't need to look like hollywood movies, we have those already.
The kinds of people that want these overly cinematic, movie-games that focus almost entirely on narrative and visuals are the fleeting casuals who don't play for long periods of time. They want to be entertained, they want an experience similar to watching a movie but with some interaction. The games are too simple and sparse to entice more advanced players, so the only people who buy and play the games are the people who will drop them soon after, the people who treat them as a passing form of entertainment.
>>319588186
>Making a game in assembly versus making a game in a pre-built engine
Wow so hard
>>319588186
>subsidize the devs so we can make a profit
>devs so we can profit
>we devs profit
>>319590151
Can't say for sure, but /v/ is likely filled with people too young to remember video games before this shit ran rampant and became the norm and/or grew up with it. Their first console was a 360, they never knew a world without paid online subscriptions and DLC.
the whole Season Pass is a scam anyway because in theory it's 'We'll provide users with regular content updates!" when in reality that means "drop a new skin in the first month, a new map in the second, some free tokens for our online shop on the third, etc." Not like they're regularly providing new, engaging content at all. It's supposed to be the carrot n the stick compelling people to stay interested but there are so many other diversions that they just wait until everything is released for a title, if they even remember to.
Can we get Expansion Packs back yet?
>>319589095
The dlc is going to be free.
Siege doesn't require the season pass to access any of it's later content. All the new maps and characters can be accessed with just the base game.
>>319590853
This. /v/ is full of underage. It's always been full of underage.
Just use Rocket League's model.
Not hard.
>season pass literally useless, only gets you 7 day early access to operators, no exclusive content
>bought game at key site for $40
He's right though. It should not be $60 for this.
>>319588468
Is that true, anon? I know I'm not making all the money in the world, but goddamn...
I bought Evolve for cheap and I feel like I would have hated it if I spent full price and dlc, but I got it cheap so I love it. I feel like I'd be the same feeling for Rainbow.
Anyway to get it cheap for xbox?
>>319591945
Everything on the internet is true anon.
>>319588186
>The cost of making games have increased dramatically...
Yet the quality has dropped, imagine that.
>>319592018
Heh, it just sounds plausible is all. I've been somewhat in touch with my generation's place in the world, especially on an economic/educational level. To hear that we might be as broke as our grandparents/great-grandparents were in the 1930s is not only scary, but it sounds realistic. I dunno, maybe I'm disillusioned.
>>319591228
Never said you had to pay for it. What I'm saying is the DLC feels like it was meant to be apart of the main game from launch, but it wasn't added so they can release it later and make it look like they're supporting it for the long run; or in other words, creating "hype" by showing off constant updates.
>>319587649
Here is the retarded thing about that article. Rainbow Six Siege future DLC will all be free. The "season pass" just allows you to automatically unlock the future operators as soon they release them, same with the maps.
The game itself is really fun and I've been having a blast with it. I unlocked most of the operators within 5 hours. That article is flawed.
>>319587649
It was Valve with L4D who started this fucking trend of scrapped together multi-player only games for $60. They also pioneered in a lot of other shit, they are prime kikes.
>>319587649
For me its worse than that. I refuse to buy any multiplayer only game for more that 5usd. 10usd if it has good AI and I can play on my own.
>>319592692
Could be the case, too bad we'll never know.
>waiting for opponents
>joining game session
>opponents never arrive
>game session never joined
Just spent 37 minutes waiting for casual mm to find me a game, usually takes about 90 seconds, this fucking game needs to be fixed badly and charging $60 for it is literally insulting.
>>319589095
While I do admit the maps are lacking, the maps are quite huge. 3 floors and two buildings to choose from. When you play ranked the defense can choose where to place their objective. Anything more than 5 players on this game would be hell. 5v5 is perfect for the size of the maps. Each room has multiple ways to breach and multiple ways to approach it.
I will admit it would be nice if they had more maps.
>>319592975
Are you on PC? That is a current bug and you're suppose to back out and search again.
I've literally never waited longer than 30 seconds to find a game on pc.
>>319587649
i have the same feeling with SFV i would pay 50 but 60 it's too much for a videogame.
>>319588186
>The cost of making games have increased dramatically since the 90's
Bullshit. Most of the budget goes to advertisement, not making the game.
>>319593393
Advertising has gone up, but so has video game development. Do you honestly think it cost the same to develop a triple A game today than back then?
>>319593136
backed out and searched multiple times mate, joined about 6 different full lobbies too.
>>319588186
>The cost of making games have increased dramatically
This is a meme. A game can have just as great gameplay as it would at any level of graphical fidelity, and there are plenty of free, professional engines. Just because dev teams make engines and overpay for assets and marketing is no suggestion for what's plausible with limited funds.
>>319588468
>Actually, young people are the poorest they've been..
This seems accurate. Is there a source?
>>319592723
L4D is amazing though.
I agree but I don't think anyone actually paid the full 60 for siege I think we all got it off key sites for 25 max so this is hardly an issue
>>319588186
>>319590002
This pic is an accurate representation of game development. Games can be expensive or cheap. Now it's even more simple.
>>319590194
>Super Mario Bros. was likely more difficult to create than Battlefront given the technology available at the time
it wasnt uncommon to have 6 month - 1 year development cycels back then for large games. 2 years would have been consdiered crazy long cycle.
Today it takes a solid 4 years to create a quality AAA game. Difficulty is relative and an arguement can be made that the difficulty hasnt changed or even has gone down, but what has changed is the skill set needed to make a modern game and the cost of acquiring someone with those skills, not to mention the time needed for that individual to exert their skills.
It isnt wrong to say budgets are bloated and development costs are way out of hand, but even with that lets not go overboard and start making absurd claims.
I used to be excited for $60 games because it meant less bullshit dlc. Now It's just depressing since I know there will be an extra $40 of dlc at minimum, not including shit like costumes or voices. On top of that, people like >>319588186 will rush to the defense of the Jews and encourage more people to buy shit, which encourages more devs to do this.
>>319593626
someone can make a game like hotline miami for reletively little, but if you want top of the line AAA graphics that shit costs money no matter how you try and spin it.
I paid $60 for MK8 and got 200 hours of play time out of it. Why should a game that I can play for 200 hours cost less than a single player game that only lasts 10-30?
Prices should be lower across the board.
>>319595084
>top of the line AAA graphics
That's called an appeal to extremes. I'm sure you could try again if you like.
Kotaku shills please go
>kotaku
fuck off
>>319587649
I completely agree. I never paid more than 15 euro for a multi only shooter, I just don't think they're worth more than that
>>319595161
i dont know if it can be called an extreme when the majority of big name games coming out these days have those sorts of AAA quality graphics. This isnt a tiny niche market asking for this, its become the expected standard for non-indie non-handheld games
Reminder to report Kotaku marketerers.
>>319588186
LAWRENCE FUCK OFF WITH THIS ANALOGY
>>319595617
Get out Patricia Gorilla
>>319587649
He's right.
They should be selling online only games for 20 bucks in the brick and mortar stores and free online.
The people who buy it for 20 bucks from the store get a shitload of unlocks and an offline mode that gives them stuff when they actually get into the game, while the people who get it for free online get the base online only game.
And let's be honest about something else.
They fucked the entire world by not cultivating and growing a fucking market that can and will allow mid cost budget games that require minimal time to build and play.
Throw away bubble gum that exists solely to fatten the wallets of devs and pubs and to give the customers more bang for their buck and fatten their game collections.
From there the game journos could start the arduous but very very very very very important task of DOING THEIR GODDAMNED JOBS and both being critical of the games and helping to nurture the gaming community and gaming as a viable entertainment genre and as something that can be important for society.
>>319588186
>so we can make a profit.
>we
>>319596163
He goes on AGDG and pretends hes a dev.
>>319587649
Consider suicide
>>319594934
Dude, they built super mario bros in 8 bit assembly on a specialized 6502 chip.
Nothing that the guys on battlefront is doing is going to be as taxing as that.
I honestly wouldn't mind paying 60 dollars for a multiplayer only game, except they never feel like they have 60 dollars worth of content. Not enough maps is usually the problem. Also the usually problems of multiplayer like only one game mode be popular kind of makes them feel even smaller.
But seriously, Evolve, Battlefront, Siege are all fun games. Just not 60 dollars fun.
>>319587649
>buy legends of the mystical ninja on snes for $50 back in the 90s, still play it.
>buy titanfall for $80 and I can't play it anyone because no one is ever on
I hate getting old
This is prettyfun
>>319592385
http://anonhq.com/the-actual-reason-why-young-people-are-the-poorest-generation-ever/
This maybe? I googled it, and that came up.
>>319587649
>Multiplayer only games shouldn't cost $60
People have been saying that at least since titanfall but retards defended it every time.
>>319588186
And the number of people that buy games has drastically increased.
Not to mention the fact that major game publishers are rich enough to buy a fucking country at this point, they're bigger than hollywood, the only people that are fucked are the devs (who will always be fucked until they leave jew publishers which they can't really do).
>>319595383
I'm pretty sure CoD hasn't gotten fewer sales because of graphics minimalism which comes with many of its games. It's the same with D3, FIFA, Madden, other sports games, Minecraft, FO4, etc. There's are nothing graphically marvelous and sell amazingly, including matching their AAA budget.
>>319602198
The only games I can see benefiting from high quality graphics are movie games and (actual) simulators. Anything based purely on gameplay and not trying to mimic real life can easily get away with sub-par graphics as long as you don't go full retard and ask $60 for voxel garbage.
>>319588186
>cost of making games has increased
>somehow my fucking problem as the consumer.
Yeah nah, shit ain't worth 60 fucking dollars faggot.
>>319587649
Why would anyone buy this over black ops 3.
>>319587649
I completely agree.
Some may argue that single player only games shouldn't be 60 either which would be true if the single player was short like COD.
However single player games usually have a lot more interesting stuff to do during their duration. I'm OK with spending full price for that.
>>319589271
Yet somehow Mario is better and made more money. Why are devs wasting all this money?
>>319588186
>The cost of making games have increased dramatically
Not my problem as the consumer though. If I feel like the game isn't worth the price, I'm not buying. Devs can call me stingy all they want.
>>319587649
Partially right
but on PC its biggest problem is that it is chained to uPlay.
>>319589271
>and complex a modern game engine
You do realize most are proprietary engines right? Only large as fuck companies make their own because they hopefully save more than it'd cost licensing one.
>>319595617
Is there a pastebin on that Arkham Knight article?
>The "thoughts on this" Kotaku shill is back.
go fuck some indie dev
>>319594934
>implying
There's another Battlefield game and Assassin's Creed plentifully.
>>319587649
>Kotaku
>Grayson
Just, no.
>>319601734
This. Great selling games for the PS1 and PS2 were a few million.
>>319587649
It doesn't matter what you think, the market decides if it sells.
And why the fuck are you reading an article written by the guy that fucked Zoey Quinn?
>>319602496
You're forgetting that casuals love them some graphics anon. Graphics can help a game sell.
>>319605734
And graphics make a game more expensive, so pick one and stop complaining when you make the wrong choice time and time again.
>>319588186
>The cost of making games have increased dramatically
Nope.
Got it for $34. Fuze and Jager are my niggas.
>>319605369
Want to know the most hilarious part?
Decent devs with a good online presence can not only survive off of 500000 console sales, they can fucking thrive off of it.
Real problem?
The industry is set up in such a way as to shit on any small or midtier devs who don't put out embarassing as fuck "indie" titles and lionize BIG AAAA GAMING EXPERIENCES and DEWRITOS!! and shit like that.
Without a budget console designed around selling directly to the masses in small brick and mortar stores....the gaming industry is fucked.
And not just because no one save for the people who're the bitch of the major publishers or steam can survive I mean becuase everyone is getting bored of the entire fucking industry and the systems are becoming more complex and more costly.
If movies were only big block busters and shitty queer arthouse garbage then hollywood would be fucking dead.
Fucking hilariously enough the stupid fucking suits who run the industry and paid off journo shills think of games as only that and help decimate the medium sized non AAA or indie games that sell directly to the VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO KEEP THE FUCKING INDUSTRY AFLOAT.
>>319588186
>The cost of making games have increased dramatically since the 90's
The COST of making a game can be cheap as chips now that we have an indie market, the average amount SPENT on game development is another problem entirely.
>>319605905
Not really, hell most can just use one of the engines from last gen and pretty that shit up.
Games sell on having a pleasing artstyle not just REEEELEST GURAFIXUH, and gameplay. Without those, you're fucked.
Hell you can even get away with not the best but at the very least CONSISTENT graphics if the gameplay is good.
Just get cry engine or ut3 or some other engine, make a good looking game, and create a tight well done game on a strict budget and sell it in the 20 dollar range.
Hell a 6 hour shooter with fun local multiplayer will make bank.
No digitally distributed game should cost more than $10
>>319607032
HD Game Development really did fuck over developers though. It's why JRPGs sorta just transitioned to handhelds and why the Wii had so many games in Japan.
>>319606395
Lack of AA is the biggest issue.
AA was the main driving force behind videogames.
They were the ones who experimented which then lead to AAA shits copying them.
They are the ones that kept budgets low while still having tons of talent on board which guaranteed quality games.
I dont think we need a budget system. We just need a way to make those AAs reach the people.
Maybe lower the price point. Why does every game NEED to be 60/70$?
Indies actually understand that stuff. Some of their games are 5 or 10$. AA stuff could launch at 30 or 40.
That Fast Racing Neo game on the WiiU looks like quality stuff and its launching at a really low price.
>>319607061
Did you read my post at all?
>>319587649
More of these games need to consider an F2P model for increasing the lifespan of their games. Valve has used the F2P model in games like CS:GO to staggering effect. I can't understand why traditional publishers like Ubisoft and 2K aren't leaping at the same opportunity, and instead sticking to a model which actively discourages players from buying in, with a huge upfront cost.
If only 2K hadn't been so idiotic with Evolve, the game might have lasted more than 6 months. I've been playing it recently Solo, and can't believe how much wasted potential that game had. If they went F2P today, they still might be able to claw their way back from irrelevancy. I hope whoever was in charge of managing the business side of that game was fired for gross incompetency.
>>319592975
Same thing happened to me regularly on PS4 in both betas, which is why I didn't buy it.
Devs counter that problem by adopting a yearly release model that causes the same 20 retards who present order the game and buy a season pass to do it over and over again for the same game plus one or two.
A minority of fanboy retards make anti-consumer practices more profitable than a fair business model with mass and lasting appeal.
>quick googling shows that there's post launch content including maps and operators which will be free to everyone.
>season pass literally just gives you early and instant access to things like the maps and operators (among other bonuses such as xp boost and shit)
I think the problem is having something called a season pass in the first place it seems to be confusing people.
I don't particularly like ubisoft as much as the next person but these articles asking whether it's worth the $60 price point should be at least looking at the plans for post release content as well. Their plans to me at least are trying to reduce the fracturing of the community by providing all this content at one price point.
I do agree this fracturing does happen with other games and it shouldn't be happening but everyone is singling out rainbow six siege when their plans (at least from what i can see for the next year) are trying to keep everyone together (for the most part). They fucked up with patriots, they're most likely trying to salvage the cost so they're trying a pseudo early access type thing where they release a game and continue to support it with the money you've already given them over a given period of time.
tl;dr just google siege post launch content, it's not as bad as people are making out (for siege at least)
>>319607972
*Pre-order
*plus one or two tweaks.
>>319588186
>the consumer is supposed to give a shit about development costs
That is not my fucking problem you shill. If you can't make a quality game for a competitive price, you lose. End of story.Unless you're a triple a publisher that knows how to trick casuals.
>>319587649
I agree with this person's point but they are a retard for using a game they have no clue about as clickbait.
>DLC / Season passes that isolate the player base with maps.
R6:S maps and content will be available to everyone for free (barring the high tier weapon skins).
>>319607243
Exactly. It can't be all 60 dollar major AAA titles all of the time. There has to be smaller budget friendly AA titles that people can allow themselves to feel good about getting and playing.
This in turn helps the industry grow AND helps build up the gamings base with the casual and bored gamer, this also makes each AAA title feel bigger and more important then what it actually is.
"Who gives a shit about the next CoD or Madden or GTA4, It's just another 60 dollar title that's no different from the last title"
Want to know what's taking the budget titles place? Last gen used games.
Want to know why current gen is damned to fail? Aside from the costs, badly forced paid for online, buggy games, hard drive space, and other stuff?
No new AA indie/mid tier devs created budget titles.
No one wants to pick up a next gen system if they can get a far cheaper last gen system with hundreds of games and new AA and budget games being made for it.
Hell, I honestly don't understand why more devs aren't making more budgeted digital only titles and petitioning sony ms and nintendo directly so they can create a new digital only gaming space to sell their stuff
And getting into bed with the game journos and others to help get their stuff off the ground and sold.
>>319595383
You do realize The Witcher 2 had an incredibly small budget and looked far better then most AAA games around the time of its release
>>319607384
Do you know what goes into making games?
What has changed between now and the middle of last gen?
>>319587649
Its retarded. You play multiplayer for 100+ hrs in good shooters. You play your shitty corridor run yo checkpoint campaigns for 5hrs. Theres no reason to care about single player unless you fucking suck and cry bitch tears after getting shit on online. Ergo price shouldnt be different. Only thing that comes up is some mp only games lsck maps and guns and modes. Those should be cheaper like pvz garden warfare ( though it added ton of free dlc that beefed up content). Titanfsll was solid as well and updates added significant improvements over time. Lack of 4hr campaign shouldnt be a detriment except to colossal casuals.
>>319607243
>Why does every game NEED to be 60/70$?
I've read that people are averse to buying games that are under $60 because they see the lower price point as an indication that its a low quality bargain bin type game.
>>319608657
You do realize I was arguing against forcing every game to have super realistic graphics, right?
Having a playerbase is LITERALLY the most important thing for a multiplayer game. Lower price = more players
I would be fine paying 60 dollars for an MP only game if it had enough content to reflect the fact that it's MP only. The problem is what we are recieving now is what seems like a tacked on MP, without it being tacked onto anything, at full price. Nope. Not buying it.
>>319608661
dude I want my voice acting and cool speeches and cutscenes, I want to get immersed in the world. multiplayer for the vast majority of games is not immersive.
>>319608661
60 dollars to play a fairly unpopular online only game that depends on having a full online experience is fucking retarded.
That shit better be free with your online package or cost 10-20 fucking bucks.
They don't fucking deserve 60 bucks for an incomplete online dependent experience that will cost the consumer MORE MONEY IN THE LONGRUN.
60 bucks means that the game has a lot of legs and has a lot of fun to be had. No amount of paying off shills in the gaming industry to fag on about how having TOO MUCH content in games is bad will change this simple fucking fact.
>>319587649
Agreed. Plus here in Canada game prices are now $80, $90 including tax and while this is anecdotal, everyone I've talked simply won't buy games anymore. "But the dollar is crashing, need to up the price to compensate" I don't give a rats ass about how it compares, there is only so much people will spend on a game and it sure as hell isn't the consumers problem. And it will never go down as the dollar value increases. You either charge what people are willing to pay or fuck off and stop complaining.
Meh.
I got Siege for free, and it really is a very good game. The elements are all there.
I wouldn't have bought it, though.
$60 IS too steep for anything multiplayer unless it's guaranteed like CoD.
>>319588186
>and devs get rewarded for their labor.
I don't think you know how publisher and developer relationships work, anon.
>>319588186
The cost of making games has gone up but the cost of distribution has gone down and the market has expanded.
There are far more people buying video games now, there are far more people buying game consoles now and getting these products to people is cheaper than ever.
>>319587649
I will never pay $60 for a multiplayer only game, I don't give a shit if crappy developers go out of business as a result.
I also find it hard to believe making multiplayer maps is that big of a fucking challenge. People make maps for free on PC games all the time.
>People actually bought this game
>Not downloading a torrent and playing through tunngle.
Tons of people play it through tunngle and I haven't had any connection issues or lag. Dont waste your money.
I would rather pay 60 bucks for a multiplayer only game that I play for 50+ hours, then 60 bucks for a singleplayer game I play for only 8 hours.
Then again, I don't really want to pay 60 dollars for any game.
>>319588613
he's referring to goobergate
>>319608757
Yeah, they're called stupid ass rubes who believe shit that's told to them by advertisers.
There's a reason the fucking wii walked in and made the gaming industry it's bitch. Cheap games and varied games alongside the expensive games.
It was a miniature of the entire fucking gaming industry from the NES up till the last gen.
After the wii died so did the genre variety and budget costing games that were nearly on par with AAA titles.
And that was when bottom started falling out of the game industry. Well, for everyone save for the big publishers with enough money to buy advertisement and spunk out a yearly release for easy money.
>>319608757
Pretty sure Warhawk did pretty well at the $40 price point when it launched, and this was back before console multiplayer-only games had really taken off
>>319610074
warhawk was pretty damn cool, I wish I liked the combat on foot more
had dedicated server support as well as p2p
supported 4 player split-screen
you could then take those 4 players online and play with others
graphics and tech were pretty good (720p with 4xMSAA, god rays, interesting volumetric clouds)
>>319587649
holy fuck familia learn to greentext properly please I aint reading through that bullshit. reddit format for posting ideas is welcome here, just keep leddit ideas out.
>>319608757
The marketer who said that must be really dedicated to working out, otherwise he'd be out of breath from all the mental gymnastics.
>>319588186
>The cost of making games have increased dramatically since the 90's yet gamers are too selfish and stingy to pay more than $60 for the base game
The fixed cost has gone up (the development). The variable cost (aka the unit cost) for a video game has gone down. Hell, thanks to digital distribution it's very close to $0. Games (successful ones at least) sell a SHIT TON more copies than they used to. So for your statement to be true you'd have to show that development costs have risen so much that they've outstripped the sales volume increases. Now, maybe they have, maybe they haven't - we don't have the data either way. What we do know is EA had a record year in terms of profits last year. So I don't think they're hurting too bad.
>>319607190
[source not provided]
>>319609783
You're actually garaunteed 8+ hours of gameplay for that single player game.
For the online game you not only have to pay the upfront cost of 60 bucks you have to pay the 50-60 bucks for online, plus you have to pay for your internet and the inevitable overage costs,
And that's IF your game is 100% garaunteed to be populated with other players who'll give you an even moderately entertaining experience.
A multiplayer only game is only worth $60 if it comes with true dedicated servers (as in I can host my own server). Otherwise you're paying full price to play a game on borrowed time - you're dependent on the dev maintaining servers and they're not going to do that forever
As others have said, paying for multiplayer games is like an extended rental
This is why EA access could be the future of games, you wait 6 months after a game release and enjoy it on a subscription model. You get a guaranteed player base, and you get a nice income from subscribers. This is why Titanfall, BF4 and PvZ has sizable communities on xbone. I could be talking shit, but it makes sense in my eyes.
>make an online only game with realistic graphics
>60 dollarydoos and another 50 for season pass
>sell 100 different skins for 4.99
>this is somehow acceptable
If you can't make your game cheaper and without season pass bullshit, don't put so much money into making the graphics realistic. A good fun multiplayer game is still a good fun multiplayer game even if the graphics are TF2 tier. Also lets you make 1080p 60fps console versions and you will target a larger portion of the PC market with a less demanding game
>>319611174
Not HD so much as nintendo were being dicks with their unique cd format, microsoft was fucking EVERYONE over with it's bullshit tactics, and ps2 was both the weakest and worst piece of shit hardware to ever be released.
That was the first blow.
The second was that MS stopped trying in japan after they got shat on for their inferior built to fail first gen 360's, and the ps3 being such a complex and overpriced monstrosity of a console.
The wii and the handhelds were quite honestly the only games in town. And after the wii was hacked...it was over.
The ps4 is shitting the bed in japan and the wiiu is still more popular then it is and the wiiu is not popular at all.
If the nx ends up being a piece of illconcieved crap like the wiiu or a cheaply made horribly designed ibm clone in a box like the ps4/xb1 then japan will completely move away from traditional video games and go mobile only.
>>319611760
Only a problem if your poor bro.
>>319611774
Japan going to handhelds has nothing to do with the quality of the consoles and all to do with how much time they spend sitting in trains on a daily basis. If you had to sit in a train for 2 hours every day to go to work, you would probably levitate towards handhelds too
>>319588186
free market nigger you can't make products too expensive for your consumer base
$60 bucks an item is pretty expensive. Every other media hobby has an entrance barrier much lower
>>319588186
anyone have that price image?
Crysis was made for 12 million. Gears of War for slightly more. The Witcher 2 was made for about 6 million. CSGO and Dota cost basically nothing to make.
it's the bloated, shitty studios that spend dozens of millions of dollars making bloated, shitty games
>>319588186
i sure hope you got paid a decent amount to shill and shit post anon
>>319612084
It's a good thing all those 10-16 year olds are working these days so they can buy all these games, right?
>>319588470
>you can easily spend a 100 hours on a playthrough, and probably not even finish all of the content
>this is what retards actually believe
>>319611178
I only play PC online games, so I don't pay for online.
I only pay 30 dollars for Internet a month, and I would do that with or without games. My IP isn't complete dick bags that have overage costs.
I also only play a game for its first few months when its at its height of popularity.
>>319595084
that's not even true
Cryengine 3 and Unreal Engine 4 are dirt cheap to license. See the ARK game for proof of this
>>319587649
Agreed. But fuck Nathan Grayson.
>>319588186
I don't give a shit if it has gone up or not, I'm not a charity, I'm not buying games so devs can have their money
if you want money, make something worth of it or you're probably not getting it, and it's only your fault
>>319612629
But siege is rated M and little plbes shouldn't be buying these games bro. Adults only and adults should have high paying jobs and money to spend.
>>319588186
BULLSHIT, games are cheaper now than they were in the 90s. The average SNES game was like $80 minimum.
>>319588563
>You mean cost of marketing?
Not really. FF7 STILL holds the 3rd highest slot in marketing for a game, they spent $100 million hyping it up in 1997.
>>319612989
Just how kids aren't playing CoD, right?
Fuck off
>>319587649
Games that cost more to make should cost more to buy.
Educate yourselves
http://askagamedev.tumblr.com/post/67707201036/the-trouble-with-aaa-game-development
http://askagamedev.tumblr.com/post/72269327402/game-developer-myths-the-complete-game
http://askagamedev.tumblr.com/post/121854965721/why-do-massive-games-like-halo-5-that-know-for-a
You can actually go to certain websites to buy games FOR CHEAPER THAN YOU BUY FROM RETAILERS
>MFW people didn't know you can get Siege for £20
>>319613254
That's because those terrible parents buy those games for them and the kid turns into a worthless piece of shit.
>>319588186
>Devs throw more money making a game
>Doesn't come out well, missing a lot of features that would make it worth $60
>nope you gotta pay so I make a profit
nope
>>319613223
Only because nobody tells you how much they use on marketing
>>319588186
This post has been up for HOURS. What the fuck are the /v/ mods doing?
>>319588186
you mean....cut-content shoved into DLC category ?
>>319613576
You know companies are legally required to state where their money goes on the balance sheet, right? Doing otherwise is a violation of federal tax law.
>>319588186
There are people who will deny this until another crash happens. Then they will blame it on marketing. I seriously hope nobody takes advice from this shithole.
>>319613814
So what was the marketing budget for Tortanic then?
>>319612590
You could probably make Crysis for a lot less now since tools have progressed, the main difficulty would be getting enough good developers since they don't seem to exist in AAA devs.
>>319612590
You're confusing shitty with "games I don't like".
>>319612132
Dude, handhelds have been a thing in japan since the original gameboy nearly three decades ago and they have manga and they have music. That's not an excuse.
The reason gaming is dying is because the consoles are fucking expensive for everyone involved and have become a solitary thing that excludes people and the casuals who just want to play a fun game to unwind.
>>319613036
Now the average game is $60 minimum with 3-5 $10-20 DLCs, 20 $3 skins, micro-transactions and still manages to have less content.
>>319614167
no, your confusing shit taste with mine instead of yours
all those assassin creed games, all those bamham games, all those halo games, all those COD games, every game produced by Ubisoft and EA are all garbage 6/10 at best
prove me wrong. Name one of those bloated casual shit houses that is worth playing even once
>>319591172
At this point, whenever I hear about a Season Pass, I just wait for the inevitable GOTY/Definitive Edition. Short of discussion with other people that got it, I don't see the appeal of getting a game Day 1 anymore.
>>319612769
That's nice, what with all of your convenient as fuck lifestyle choices. But to the average gamer?
They're getting fucked in this deal.
It's why current gen is shitting the bed in popularity with the average game playing consumer and kids would rather have last gen consoles with the most advertised kid games or fucking wiiu/3ds with amiibo gimmicks.
>>319614462
Nobody cares about your taste. Publishers care that millions of people like their games.
>>319614691
Not dead multiplayer if you're into that and the fun of encountering dozens of bugs.
>>319593626
I do not believe he saying that is not possible to make a good looking game while keeping costs down. He is just saying that most developers now do spend a great deal more on production and development cost, and although it may be for the wrong reasons it is sadly true.
The cost of the game is ultimately up to the publisher/dev and the consumers decide whether or not the price tag is worth it. I still really wish major developers start lowering the fucking marketing cost...it is getting ridiculous.
Its their own fault.
The middle market, the AA devs if you will, were a vital part of the games industry. They made games cheaply and allowed an up and coming dev to prove themselves without pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the project. They were the people who could sell a game for 20 bucks and still make a profit.
With that gone your choice is either indie or jumping into the big boy pool and trying not to get sucked under by the whirlpools created by EA, Ubisoft, Bethesda, Rockstar etc.
>>319614875
and those millions of people dont even like video games
they buy them because theyre in and they waste time, the same way they take in music or movies
your argument doesnt even apply to what you originally responded to me about
Some anon said that you need lots of money to make great looking and well developed games
I said that wasn't true and in fact many games with big budgets look and play like shit
you then just said well nuh uh I like shitty casual games
and that isn't a retort to my point. its just a narcissistic and empty post that relies entirely on currently nonexistent social power to enforce
you're stupid and there's nothing you can do to disprove that right now
>>319614376
That is the average AAA game, not the average game.
>>319587649
>lads
i think you're a fucking cocksmoking faggot and you should kill yourself
>>319613989
>There are people who will deny this until another crash happens.
I really hope so, let it burn and rise anew, maybe even better.
/v/ is filled with this toxic consumer-first mentality.
I'm more surprised these publishers haven't latched onto the modern MMO model of just releasing the game fullprice, and then making the game F2P w/ emphasis of microtransactions once the sales/playerbase dwindle down so you can effectively relaunch the game with all the development being paid off already from the suckers who paid $60 for it.
>>319617106
Just watch, Overwatch will do just that
>>319615751
What an absolute ledge!
>>319615153
>mfw I recognize that bank.
>mfw Seers Village.
