51–60 of 145 posts
[edit] I suppose it would actually have to be X copies at $Y to be fully specified.
It's a bit rich, given there are 14 paid DLCs for the latest Civ game, and they all have pretty negative reviews for being too expensive while adding little to the gameplay.
Is Sid actually involved in the Civ games anymore? As far as I know he hasn't been directly involved in that franchise for years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine being a player who wants to collect new skins or looks in a modern game. In almost any modern game that offers microtransactions. Even indie games are starting to sell cosmetics, so they aren't left out of the feast, err, leaving money on the table. Your choice is usually limited to: 1) spend money, 2) be unable to get all cosmetics, and occasionally 3) spend hundreds to thousands of hours to obtain the skins…
When I played WoW I liked collecting pets and old mounts that were dropped from raid bosses that became solo-able or duo-able. I can't imagine anyone building a modern game where collecting cosmetics is nothing more than a fun side game rather than a revenue stream.
I agree with him completely. But I also wonder sometimes: Who is spending money on all of these awful games? There's so much good stuff on Steam, GOG, the Switch eStore, etc. Wonderful games made by people who care, for a fair price, without exploitative monetisation, that I don't feel even remotely tempted to play whatever Ubisoft is currently peddling. Some examples I've played in recent years are Celeste, Into the…
I have limited time, and have tried a few less famous games based on recommendation, and some I absolutely hated. However, I know if I buy say, Assassins Creed, I'm going to enjoy it.
So part of the problem your suggesting I guess is people like me. I don't buy the IAP/addons/microtransactions, but I do buy the games. So if I have time to sit and play a video game - do I scour the internet for recommendations, read reviews, watch trailers...or just buy a name brand I know I've enjoyed in the past? For me obviously, the latter.
What I don't agree with is this simplistic narrative by gamers on how how very evil and greedy game producers are. Because gamers themselves play a significant role in that.
As an example, mobile game developers largely switched to in-game purchases not because they want to, instead because it's the only model that works to even get back their investment. Even asking as little as 3-5$ for a high quality game means most people skip it, even though they would love the game and could easily afford it. Apple Arcade is a counter act against this very perverse market dynamic.
Gamers created this dynamic. For being cheap. And please don't respond to say that you're not cheap, it's not a personal comment.
Next example. As a Battlefield fan, let's take good old ultra evil EA. Let's restrict this to the monetization part. Upon launch, Battlefield typically costs about 60€ where I live. And it doesn't take very long for this to significantly drop. IF you want to go crazy, you can go for some ultimate version, for about 100€.
59.99€ for some mysterious reason is carved in stone. Games have costs this amount (or less) since forever. Inflation seems to have no grip at all on game prices, nor does the price reflect the explosion in complexity, scope and upkeep (servers, anti-cheat, more bugs due to complexity, etc).
I guess this is some gamers' "value treshold". A game just can't be priced any higher no matter the value on offer.
Let's talk value. If you're a fan of the series, it has almost infinite replay value, as is the point of an online shooter. You can play the game for years, for thousands of hours. People are still playing BF4, which is from 2013.
And still gamers complain that it's expensive. The reality is that at least for this game, it's a steal. Extraordinarily cheap highly engaging entertainment in limitless supply. Thousands of hours compared to about the cost of going out for dinner.
The low price of 59.99, enforced by irrational gamers, likely is subsidized by optional in-game purchases that do not affect gameplay. In other words, people wanting a fancy soldier's coat in the game are basically paying to keep 59.99 steady, seemingly forever. And in this magic gamers world, ongoing costs somehow don't exist. Basically, any method to monetize is evil.
All of this is to say that game producers use the model that works. If you refuse to pay for fair value and sabotage every reasonable method, this is what you get. Gamers need to look in the mirror.
Sid is a few years too late with the warning. Gameplay and original game design have taken a backseat to increasingly hostile monetization schemes, lazy/safe/rehashed game loops and marketing/shareholder driven development for at least a decade now. The amount of AAA titles built on hype and released broken at launch, with promises of future patches, is too long to list. With some notable exceptions, most of the inno…
Maybe this is a result of it being hard to estimate and budget new releases, rather than being explicitly consumer hostile (though it may well be as you say).
The worst part of this trend to me is how many games sacrifice their identity to fit the mold that is now most profitable, it feels so soulless. This is all from my own experience/memory. Every game needs live service, seasons, and a battle pass. While I appreciate that it can keep the game fresh and evolving over time, I think a lot of times its harmful. Sometimes a relatively simple game is blown out of proportion…
I agree. At this point AAA games are a genera unto themselves, whether they're a shooter, adventure game, sports game, whatever. They all share the same elements you outlined: seasons, battlepass, in-game currency, microtransactions for the smallest items, and game design that puts the focus of the entire game on those elements. AAA games are made with massive budgets and are designed to be very attractive to play, t…
Sid is a few years too late with the warning. Gameplay and original game design have taken a backseat to increasingly hostile monetization schemes, lazy/safe/rehashed game loops and marketing/shareholder driven development for at least a decade now. The amount of AAA titles built on hype and released broken at launch, with promises of future patches, is too long to list. With some notable exceptions, most of the inno…
If I understood Zuckerberg correctly during his Lex Fridman interview, he's trying to build an entire alternate reality based on this concept of monetizing in game items. He said something along the lines of, "People want to dress nice and look good in person, so why not in a VR meeting?" and then proceeded to talk about charging people for clothes and haircuts in the Metaverse. I have to wonder what sort of scenario…
Zuckerberg is a case of an elite dumbass surrounded by yes men where everyone in the room has so much money they can't fathom the idea of needing to choose what to spend it on. In their world, you simply buy everything you want.
I think it would be neat to see an attempt at it though. I would love to go into a VR world where I could see how many people are wearing the default clothes and haircuts vs people paying for virtual goods.
Is a virtual suit tax deductible? Imagine creating a virtual clothing manufacturer in a tax haven and having your US company buy $2k virtual suits for the entire staff. That's instant profit shifting and tax avoidance.
Would they have IP protections for virtual goods? Who owns a plain black tee shirt in VR? What's the difference between a designer purse and a knockoff in VR? Will people inspect my avatar to make sure I'm wearing genuine Calvin Klein (TM) (C) (NFT) underwear?
A year or two ago, I watched @shroud (on Twitch) play Squad. I'm not a fan of playing shooter games, but wow it was quite a spectacle to watch! There were tiers leaders on your team to report to and receive orders. Anyone could pin enemy locations on the map. Every squad worked as a team to capture territory. The play development was entirely organic. etc. etc.
If anything, I hope someone carves out the 'old school' market from the belly of the beast and creates a name or brand that that market can rally around. It seems unnecessary to be concerned by the modern video game market. They are catering to an entirely different type of player. It doesn't matter that it's more profitable if they aren't taking away your audience.