If you go by standard inflation, games purchased in 1998 would now cost over $100. And, given reduced visuals, those games needed much fewer people to finish.
Selling games for $100 is one idea, and some publishers have even shifted that way. But, that’s not so fair for low income gamers (especially since even since 1998, the minimum wage hasn’t really gone up).
The solution they came up with is changing the entry fee, and giving semi-pointless extras on top. What I’ve generally seen is that the things games sell within them are in no way “Half the game’s content”; usually things more like skins and cosmetics. Levels, story, and gameplay items are very commonly accessible to everyone. There are expansion packs, just as there were in 1998, that usually represent significant development efforts, new voice acting, and new levels.
Skins are not “nothing”, so I understand the frustration of having them unavailable, compared to old days when they were unlockable by doing a kickflip between the schools in Tony Hawk or something. But in those old days, games effectively cost $100. Which would you prefer?
$100 games. I know I’m the minority in this as I have the income for it, but I subscribe to the “buy once, cry once” mentality where I’d rather pay a large up-front cost for something and just have it be mine with all the bells and whistles it comes with. I detest this nickle and dime bullshit modern gaming has become.
Which is why I’ve also given up on “AAA” games from corporate publishers and stick to indie games from indie developers. I’m sure even if the AAA publishers started charging $100 for games, they’d still nickle and dime you just because they can.
That’s definitely a fair opinion - just unfortunate that enough people wouldn’t agree, or wouldn’t be able to afford $100 games, that that will probably never happen.
The other issue is that developers these days keep working on games after their release - often using information gained related to launch reception.
One other thing I think people forget about older games is that they made a lot of sequels. They have the assets for a mid-sized game and a lot of unused ideas, so to put out more content they remix what they have in new ways for a shorter development cycle. That kind of thing now becomes more suitable for an expansion pack; but whichever way it’s sold, the timeline for its release would never have made it to the first game’s production deadline.
There are a lot of benefits to the sequel model in some circumstances. You get to have every permutation of a game and its versions rather than overwriting previous versions of a game that arguably might be better for their own reasons.
Street Fighter 6 recently came out, to pretty high praise from reviewers and the general public.
The game has a “Year 1 character pass” that adds 4 new characters. Eventually, there will be a year 2 character pass that will add more characters. If you’re not buying these, you’re literally not getting the entire game. When you play online, you will face opponents playing characters that you can’t even play yourself.
There are lots of games that have similar features where not spending the extra cash means you’re literally not getting as much content as everyone else. It’s not just about cosmetics anymore and hasn’t been for years now.
That’s actually a very fair point. I don’t play fighting games, but this is a common theme for many multiplayer games now. A lot of developers have worked to make the newer character options “fair”, but even when they work to balance new with old, just having confusing tactical options that some players can’t play as is enough to mess with someone’s strategic skill development.
So for fighting games, character passes are a good thing(overall).
If you bought SF4 at launch and continued to play the game throughout it’s life, you ended up buying the same game multiple times. This was essentially a few characters and a balance patch(had new mechanics as well). This the fragmented the player base a lot, so if you were playing the base game you couldn’t play with someone on the latest version.
Street Fighter 5 however, switched to character passes and even being able to unlock characters with in-game currency(difficult if you came to the game later but possible). This means everyone got the balance patches and major system updates, so the player base stayed as a single entity.
For a niche genre, this is significantly better than multiple purchases of the same game, and allows for a game to get more updates over a longer time.
However I do wish they kept in more unlockable content like costumes, colours and stages.
Specific to Street Fighter 6 though, they have a battlepass(which is not good, but isn’t terrible either) which the free version gave/gives out a bunch of character rental tokens, so you can play with DLC characters you haven’t purchased.
I think klei may be my favourite studio. They create amazing games that are all truly unique but backed by strong game design concepts.
Mark of the ninja - great 2d stealth game were most games in the genre are 3d.
Invisible Inc - great turn-based Rougelike stealth game.
Don’t starve - probably one of the best survival games out there that relies on clever resource management rather than combat
Oxygen not included - a base building survival game, that is well designed to ramp up difficulty with the long term needs of your base
Griftlands - deck building game with a charming plot and interesting mechanics.
Each game they output is truly unique and interesting experience with some really clever design choices, but I think the point they became my favourite studio is when I read their article on Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic rewards to appreciate how well thought out their games were.
Remedy Entertainment. From Max Payne 1 & 2, to Alan Wake 1 & 2, to Quantum Break, to Control, there has not been a game from them that I've played that hasn't been absolutely fantastic. They have not failed to miss so far.
It is utterly bizarre to me out of all the misnomers and ridiculous (sometimes offensive) terms out there in the media/hobby world, I see “boomer shooter” complained about so much more than any other. This is like the third rant I’ve seen about it in a week.
I thought Twitter and such were making a mountain out of a mole hill with how people responded to the term “Boomer“ in past years but clearly it ruffles peoples feathers way more than it should. Half the time I go through the comment histories and these are the same people that use ableist slurs regularly. I am not suggesting that OP does, I have not looked at their comments. Just a general observation.
If you were around back in the 90s, you might appreciate why this annoys so many older gamers. Boomers lost their fucking minds over video games. Millennials and Gen-Z weren’t the first generation that had to deal with their bullshit.
I’ll probably hear some shit for this one but recently it has been Capcom. They’ve been pumping out high quality games for the past 5 or 6 years and they’re showing no signs of slowing down. Monster Hunter World/Rise, DMC5, RE 2 Remake, RE 4 Remake, Street fighter 6.
Their RE engine is like magic and I’m pumped for MH Wilds and RE 5 Remake.
Developers change so much that it is hard to have a favourite anymore.
SCS have been going for a while now and are doing a great job with ETS2 and ATS, supporting the game and releasing/updating DLC regulary. It feels like a true passion project for them.
Most of favourites are small indie developers and games like Live For Speed, Software Inc, Ostriv.
Id, Bioware, and Bethesda have all been mentioned, and are strong contenders.
Ludeon Studios and Ghost Ship Games each only really have one game (RimWorld and Deep Rock Galactic, respectively), but they’re so damn good and they both have such a strong relationship with their communities that they’re definitely among my favorites at the moment.
I have a love/hate relationship with Paradox Interactive. Their DLC model… leaves a lot to be desired, but I have yet to find much else that scratches the grand strategy itch in the same way they do, and the level of mod support they provide is impressive. I don’t know if I can call them my favorite, but I’ve logged over 1000 hours into EU4 alone, so I have to at least mention it, I feel.
I wouldn’t say I necessarily have favorite developers, since I’ve rarely played and enjoyed more than a single game from a developer. At least before that developer is closed or morphed into something else.
Currently, I would say Bethesda is probably my only favorite “developer” currently going. I actually enjoyed Starfield quite a bit and have enjoyed their games going all the way back to Morrowind. Not to mention, there still isn’t anyone else that has managed to act an alternative to their style of games.
Beyond them, I’m wracking my brain trying to come up with another developer that is still putting out games and that I would classify as a “favorite developer” and not just “a developer who makes one game I like”.
Edit: FROM Software, that’s what I was probably trying to think of. I’ve definitely enjoyed quite a few of there games.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne