For a long time I've been playing only retro games. I thought it was just nostalgia.
But I realized I was right all along. Look at the chart. This was made in 2005. GTAV cost $265 mln. Destiny cost $500 mln. Great games used to cost under $1 mln to develop. Video games cost more than movies now.
Video games went from small studios with ideas to Hollywood level blockbusters where any step away from the formula is considered death. Thank you, I'd rather play Heroes of Might and Magic III all over again.
The video game industry now has more money involved in it than the movie industry.
>>3355349
I remember when I first got my 360 and after a while realized what a huge step down most games were with a few gems here and there. I haven't kept up with modern gaming at all since, there's still an almost endless amount of games I've never played, why continue being a good goy when I can just drink from the endless fountain of free roms and emulators
>>3355376
OP here. Are you me? Exactly this. X360 killed it for me.
>>3355372
This is really ridiculous. No wonder gaming is being accepted into mainstream culture more than anything now. Games are no longer considered outsider hobby, all while they get shittier and shittier.
What I wonder is, how are the publishers going to keep the $60 price tag? Yeah, I know, IAP, DLC and all that—but how big can it get?
I feel like we're at some breaking point. If everything continues at this pace, only the biggest companies will survive it. Destiny's budget is already alarming, for a game that is pretty mediocre.
The day the first $1 billion game comes out might be pretty soon. What will it be like? I'm sure as hell that at $60 per game they won't make a profit. It should probably be milking gamers and make them pay over $200 just to get half-decent experience.
>>3355440
>by the year 2014 the average game will cost over $120
>>3355468
Yeah it's kinda outdated and pulled out of the ass also
BTW, for some reason this topic isn't really being talked about much or covered for that matter.
In the '90s, everyone said, "hey ho, we'll make bigger games now, whole motherfucking 3d worlds with video cutscenes using this new cd technology!!!". Then they kind of realized how they fucked up when their studios got closed/purchased, when Sega went belly up, Microsoft made a console and made Japanese irrelevant for the whole decade. They even further understood their lesson when casual gaming market emerged, and Ubisoft and Activision got big making the same game every year.
>>3355440
>I know, IAP, DLC and all that—but how big can it get?
very. Well into the triple digits
>>3355468
it does. Take a blockbuster, all its pre-order and collector's edition "bonuses", season passes and other DLC, all its "remasters" (extremely reduced dev costs, still full price), you'll easily pass that price
>>3355524
I quit new consoles in around 2010 and this shit is still ridiculous to me. I mean, financially, it makes PERFECT sense: when the price of the games barely changed (except for inflation), budgets went up a thousand times. They had to offset this, somehow.
But all these pre-orders, paid beta access keys—I just don't want to process it. I don't even want to know what "season passes" are. If you told anyone in 2000 they'd need a season pass to get full experience, they'd kill you.
Now I'm simply interested what's next. What new way will producers and market analysts find to offset costs. What about game plans, like phone plans? You get a game for $60, and plans starting at "just" $29.99/month.
>>3355537
The Wii U is likely going to be my last console, just because the games still have a retro-ish feel and Zelda will likely be the game that ties my whole video game journey up.
I remember looking at Zelda art as a kid and wishing the games looked that way.
>>3355552
>I remember looking at Zelda art as a kid and wishing the games looked that way.
now they do. Thoughts?
>>3355561
It's bittersweet. Seeing how Nintendo is embracing shitty business practices on one hand and on the other, still making games like XCX, Pikmin 3, and Zelda. I just wonder when I won't really be able to recognize the company anymore and I'd rather just call it a day and catch up on all the stuff I missed over the years.
>>3355552
So sad that Wii U is losing big time. Maybe they will regain some ground by the usual Nintendo magic, but still it had a lot of potential… And it was spoiled by poor marketing and gimmicky presentation.
These are very uncertain times for Nintendo and video games as a whole.
>>3355575
>Wii U is losing big time
You idiots have to turn everything into a console war, don't you?
>uncertain times for Nintendo and video games as a whole
Can you add some more hyperbole and fellatio, please?
>>3355586
As someone that doesn't like console wars, Nintendo fucked up, which meant less games for Wii U owners and less confidence moving forward with NX.
Which is why I won't be buying it.
>>3355586
Not really. I meant that it's just selling less than expected. Thus less games, less support and all that.
I said "these are uncertain times for Nintendo" because their president died and the new one was literally a banker. Also because of the growing competition from mobile market. And the Wii U sales don't help much too.
>>3355598
>less than expected
expected by whom?
>I said "these are uncertain times for Nintendo"
You did not. Don't misquote to deflect
>the growing competition from mobile market
entirely self made
Why do you give a shit about the "survival" of a company anyway? It's just that, a company. What's the use of a company "surviving" that does shit? Games, man, not companies.
>>3355614
Considering Nintendo has made some of my favorite retro games, and those people also make some of my favorite modern games, I'd say the company matters a fair bit.
>>3356437
>Nintendo has made
the people at the time at Nintendo did
>those people
they constantly change, it's a company
>I'd say the company matters a fair bit
I'd say it doesn't at all. People may
>>3355468
it's kind of true, except instead of one big game you have to buy several "games" or DLC for the full experience
also some sequels end up being the exact same game, if not sometimes even less than the previous one, for full price. so you still might end up paying $120 for what used to be a single full game, even though you bought "2" games
>>3356483
Pretty lame arguments, homie. Coca-Cola is still selling Coca-Cola, McDonald's still sells burgers, Wal-Mart still sells everything. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. Nintendo, like many 100+ year old brands still does the same thing, and they do it well. It doesn't matter who's at the helm of a company that does a specific thing, that thing is going to get done.
>>3355575
Nintendo already made back all the money it lost on the Wiiu with Pokemon Go.
>>3356967
Dunno about Coca-cola, but McDonalds is actually in big trouble nowadays. Fast casual restaurants are carving bigger and bigger pieces out of the fastfood market. Mcdonalds hasn't been making a revenue for quite a while now.
>>3356967
>Nintendo, like many 100+ year old brands still does the same thing
Still sells hanafuda cards?
>>3355349
>literature was never expensive to create
>music was never ridiculously expensive to create
>paintings were always expensive to create, but at still they never managed to get more expensive to create
So, what do you think? Will be /vr/-games buried by the 22nd century or they will be still played?
>>3357007
You do have a point, McDonald's was a bad example. Though they still make a tasty burger.
>>3357042
Games are games, man. And they've been making electronic toys since the 70s.
>>3357080
Emulators, flash carts, bootleg games, and hardware clones have ensured that people will still be playing /vr/-games long after our deaths. There's millions of Famiclones on the market right now, there's kids in China and SE Asia who are growing up with Super Mario Bros with the title screen removed. We have nothing to worry about; only the most autistic of us who need original carts and hardware (I hoard Famicoms for the record) will be impacted. Everyone else can just keep playing however they can.
>>3357007
>Mcdonalds hasn't been making a revenue for quite a while now.
You mean profit. If business doesn't make revenue, it means they pretty much ceased operations.
>>3355614
Fuck your attitude, dude. Stop putting words into my mouth and making straw man arguments.
I said what I said: Wii U sold less copies than is expected from a console. By whom? By everyone. It's been 3 and a half years since its launch. 13 million units have been sold worldwide. It's not Wii tier, it's not N64 tier. Gamecube sold 21 million in 6 years. It's close to PS Vita (almost 14 million now).
It's even less successful in North America: ~6 million units. GameGear sold 4.5 million there, Dreamcast—almost 4 million.
And now that NX rumors are everywhere, it's pretty obvious that Wii U will be abandoned pretty quick. But what comes after it? Nintendo has a new president, Iwata is dead. No one knows what the company will do. What part of it don't you understand?
>>3356483
It seemed like their design philosophy stayed pretty constant, not to mention people like Aonuma, Miyamoto, etc (other more obscure staff members I love but don't have time to list right now) are still there making the stuff I love. At least, I hope so.
You don't have to be a contrarian asshole. I am aware that staff changes, but Nintendo has also kept a high bar of quality and consistency. It seems that they continue to work with people that gel with their philosophy.
>>3357695
>What part of it don't you understand?
Why you give a shit. You're a console warrior, and it's annoying. Especially statements like
>the usual Nintendo magic
>uncertain times for Nintendo and video games as a whole.
are corporate whoring right out of the textbook
>>3357980
>You don't have to be a contrarian asshole
I just have issues with blind brand loyalty and console warfare
>>3358095
> You're a console warrior
Your way of drawing conclusions is rather unorthodox
>>3358110
>Nintendo magic
>Nintendo and video games as a whole
seriously, that's excessive and retarded romanticizing.
Now, with me owning zero consoles (past and present) you tell me how I'm a console warrior and projecting. Been playing DOS/Windows ever since (including console games via emulation), and I find that insane brand loyalty you folks are throwing around absolutely repulsive. Again, this thread is about games. Not companies, not consoles, not sales, games. Nintendo shaped gaming history, just like a ton of other companies. They're not representative for video gaming
>>3358151
Again, you've made a straw man you're fighting against.
If it is so hard to understand to you, "Nintendo magic" just refers to ability of Nintendo to make successful games, both critically and commercially—despite having weaker or less popular hardware (as seen with Nintendo DS and N64).
What made you think of some "insane brand loyalty"? Where exactly do I state I even own any Nintendo consoles? You implied this out of nowhere. I don't deny I like Nintendo games. And I also like Capcom, SNK, Sony, Konami, NWC, etc etc etc games. Still, this doesn't justify your nonsense at all.
>>3358201
>just refers
it's a romanticized phrase
>despite having weaker
because of
>less popular
who's projecting now?
>What made you think of some "insane brand loyalty"?
emotionally loaded phrases and equating Nintendo with the future of video games as a whole, among other things.
>Where exactly do I state I even own any Nintendo consoles?
Nowhere. you accused me of projection when using the term console warrior
>>3358224
> equating Nintendo with the future of video games as a whole, among other things.
I never said that at all. I said that these are uncertain times only for Nintendo. For Sony and the rest they are pretty certain. Video game industry is not even defined or affected wholely by Nintendo anymore, it's not 1987. And since they deliberately chose to use hardware with less capabilities and target casual audience more, they went separate ways with the rest of the industry. So this only proves that future of video games and the future of Nintendo are two entirely different things.
>less popular
I.e. less commercially successful. This thread started as a discussion of commercial aspect of development of video games. I am talking about everything from commercial perspective. Commercial success of consoles heavily affects video game market. So obviously I do care how many units each console has sold.
>>3358260
>I never said that at all
Don't care if that's you or someone else, this is the phrase I had an issue with
>>3355575
>These are very uncertain times for Nintendo and video games as a whole.
>obviously I do care how many units each console has sold
obviously you're a console warrior. You just hold your nose up high and hope nobody will notice
>>3358224
I didn't equate Nintendo with the future of video games, they're adopting practices which make it easier to coexist in the modern gaming industry but that says nothing about the future. Said practices might not even be applicable in the future. But some of those practices aren't exactly desirable and that's too bad, since Nintendo is known for marching to the beat of their own drum. That's not selling very well, however, and that's too bad.
I like all video games. I've played a fair bit on PC, as well. But Nintendo made some of my favorites and I hope their brand and IP and design philosophy persist, because those things are unique.
I think, having played multiple consoles, I have more of a right to discuss the topic than you do, with the generalizations you're making. I'm not really sure if you're trying to bait or not, but your style of posting is pretty aggravating.
>>3355524
>It does. Take a blockbuster, all its pre-order and collector's edition "bonuses", season passes and other DLC, all its "remasters" (extremely reduced dev costs, still full price), you'll easily pass that price
Which is why I think all the complaints about retro game prices to be completely overblown. I much rather pay $20-$30 for a classic retro game like Super Mario Bros 3 than shell out $120 for a "modern" game and the borderline mandatory season pass bullshit that gets pumped out these days.
>>3358341
>I didn't equate Nintendo with the future of video games
Don't care if that's you or someone else, this is the phrase I had an issue with
>>3355575
>These are very uncertain times for Nintendo and video games as a whole.
>But Nintendo made some of my favorites
so what?
>their brand and IP
fuck IP law, seriously. There are people out there that love that IP more than anybody at the company ever could, but they're not allowed to do anything because someone else thought of it first. That's bullshit, utter bullshit. Kind of like your posting.
>design philosophy
not tied to a company
>have more of a right to discuss the topic than you do
do what now? Oh, you're shitposting. I'd rather you wouldn't though. We're miles away from the original thread subject, because of your corporate fellatio and brain-dead deflections
>your style of posting is pretty aggravating
likewise
>>3355552
I have faith in the NX. Nintendo does their own thing and they still continue making fun games. Literally 99% of the complaints about modern gaming mostly comes from shitty third party publishers anyway. If you're gonna support anyone moving forward it might as well be Nintendo. At least they still make actual games and not wannabe movie shit.
>>3355349
Who's the pedophile that decided what is and is not AAA anyway?
>ITT: millennials try to out word each other and make fools of themselves.
>>3358356
You're a fucking faggot. Smb3 should be $5 or $10 at least. Idiots like you buy the $30 games so sellers think it's okay to leave the price at it. Fuck you.
>>3358358
Ah, so you are just a butthurt, contrarian asshole, then. Neat.
>>3355586
Market share is hugely important sonny boy
>>3361136
to you and console warriors. To a developer it's largely meaningless, as the only thing it affects is which platform they produce their game on, not if they make it
>>3357080
>literature was never expensive to create
What? Books were literally worth more than a house for much of history. Ancient and Medieval scribes used to complain about how much effort went into writing.
>>3361146
>To a developer it's largely meaningless
Hahahaha yeah sure buddy
> implying big developers aren't entirely dependent on producers who prioritize sales
> implying small developers didn't die many years ago
> implying some of the biggest developers aren't owned by Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft or don't have contracts with them
> implying all platforms have the same hardware and features
> implying Japanese developers make domestic market games for American consoles
I could point down more mistakes but I'd be out of character limit soon
>>3355372
This + inflation.
You're using a board just for talking about old videogames as a stealth attempt to talk about modern videogames. Fuck you, you're all shitters.
>>3361282
I don't really want to talk about modern video games, I want to talk about what we lost.
We lost small studios with their own cute memes, which made some of the best, well-known games which you could talk about with your normie friends. Games which didn't try to be movies, but were all about their mechanics and often unique lore rather than graphics. Games which were actually about the challenge, gaining skill, not just collecting dull achievements. Stories which actually weren't pondering to lowest common denominator by exploiting Hollywood cliches.
>>3361365
>Games which were actually about the challenge, gaining skill
I don't necessarily miss that. I play games to enjoy, not to beat them
>>3361372
It's hard for me to put this into words, I just mean that basically, games were interesting to play. They were captivating—enjoyably challenging.
I don't mean "hard". There's just unfair hard; and there's challenge—the one you actually need to learn to overcome.
For example, you know, all Mario games are pretty hard. But when you explore the world, you learn new things. Like, for example, that you could run and duck and then you'll slide; or you can simply get the feeling for how Mario "steers" on ground, how fast he runs, how high he jumps. You learn it, then you use to it to your advantage and get further. And this is actually enjoyable—you learn to overcome some abstract mental tasks. It feels in a way close to learning a musical instrument.
But today I feel this aspect has been deliberately left out of most games, in an effort to not offend anyone with difficulty, not bother anyone with any challenge. Today it's mostly about spectacle because that's what sells. Retro games by default couldn't provide very much of spectacle, as they were sprite-based, played on small CRT TVs, whatever. They were targeted to different auditories, people who actually were interested in the game, not just wanted to get wowed. People who were willing to put in some effort, not just lie on the couch and watch.
And that's sad because in today's market, there's almost no way to make these challenging games anymore. Because on smartphones, it's all about cost-cutting and casual fun, since most games are usually freemium; and on big platforms, graphics and spectacle sell games.
>>3361403
>enjoyably challenging
I guess I'm overly twitchy towards the people that insist on the "old school difficult" meme, that insist it's them vs. the game, that a game must be beat.
>in an effort to not offend anyone with difficulty
There's a different reason. Games don't respect the player any longer. They don't acknowledge the player's ability to think and learn. So everything is spelled out. That's not a difficulty thing. Even today the most difficult games, usually difficult in terms of twitch gameplay and reaction, will be heavily tutorialized. These games can be much much harder than lots of old school shit. They will still believe the player is incapable of coherent thought, and pre-chew everything for them.
>couldn't provide very much of spectacle, as they were sprite-based, played on small CRT TVs
that's a personal issue
>>3361405
"Difficult" can be veeery different.
I know plenty unenjoyable difficult games. The key thing here is to the player him in learning the game, incite it and reward it. When "challenge" is just a concrete wall in front of the player he needs to climb for ten hours, it's just dumb. When it's a concrete wall with a bright red door and a sign above the door saying "A DOOR", it's equally dumb.
Take Pokemon games for an example of what I consider "good" hard game. The basics of the game are as easy as they get. But then it becomes apparent that there are different types of attacks, different monsters with different abilities, and if you learn that you can deal much more damage. Then breeding surfaces, promising even stronger monsters; and so on. You explore and gradually gain knowledge where given Pokemon live, and of course their weaknesses; you built your strategy according to it. In a way, the more you learn, the better you become in the game. It encourages you to learn its complexities when you lose.
Or take Metroid. The game is BUILT on inciting exploration. You shoot walls to find holes because you know that it's likely to be rewarded. You think how to make hard jumps and grab items because you know it means more rockets/bombs and better final score.
Or take Megaman. Most bosses in Megaman X, for example, can appear very hard at first. But then you notice their patterns. After you beat the game, you start to wonder about the most effective routes, etc. Your second run can be more interesting than your first.
It's not that I'm sick of tutorials; it's just that today gameplay is put into second place. What's in the first place is spectacle. Everything is like Mortal Kombat was back in the day—mostly centered on the spectacle, except much less interesting to play than MK. Pokemon does have a lot of stuff that can be classified as pretty much tutorials and hand-holding; this doesn't take away its challenge.
>>3361454
>It's not that I'm sick of tutorials
I am. Tutorials are the worst way to teach the player. You brought up Metroid yourself. The game teaches the player step by step without dropping a single word in your face. It acknowledges your ability to look, think, and react. Tutorials don't.
