I don’t think he’s wrong. AAA game prices have been basically the same for 20+ years, while the cost of making games has only gone up. I think this is why a lot of publishers push for progressively more aggressive microtransactions, which can often hide the actual price of the game’s content. And greed but that’s kind of their job.
The idea that BG3 and Overwatch 2 released at the same price point is actually ludicrous. With AAA games, the price is standard and if you don’t like the game, oh well fuck you. And I would absolutely pay extra for games from developers which invested more, and had a higher standard of quality. Larian could charge $100 for their next CRPG and I’d be all in. Similarly, I don’t think minimally viable cash grab titles or smaller, maybe more experimental titles should release for more than like $30.
I think the indie scene does this pretty well but it’s a challenge for AAA, and consumers are somewhat to blame. I think people would balk more at an $80 standard price than a $60 half-complete game with $4k of microtransactions. So of course, studios are going to go with the latter strategy, even though plenty of people hate it.
AAA wouldn't remove macrotransactions to counter the higher price, they would just charge more for the game and keep everything the same. The current generation has been conditioned by mtx, it's no longer a whale problem. it's a norm that the average consumer accepts and buys into, which has fucked the industry.
Overwatch was priced at $40 on launch, it was just multiplayer after all. They priced it brilliantly and the mtx they had were pointless and non-invasive, a far cry to what that game has devolved into these days. Overwatch '2' was a forced patch which turned the game free-to-play and added all the aforementioned cancer mtx.
BG3 is $60, without any mtx. So I don't really understand the point you are making at all, it is just false that they were priced the same, BG3 didn't need to cost more, if it's cheaper it's more accessible to more people and the volume of sales makes up for the lower price, don't forget (like they want you to) there are a LOT more people playing and buying games now than 5, 10, 20 years ago.
Games are half-baked because people's standards have dropped and they will just buy half-baked shit, people still pre-order digital games... or they buy special editions to let them play the game 3 days early or whatever, the situation we are in is the fault of mindless consumption, not the fact game prices haven't significantly increased.
Until AAA games can remove the predatory monetisation, and gain our trust back, we should not be agreeing to be charged more. These companies aren't struggling, they are turning over record profits. Support indie developers, fuck AAA.
What this CEO and you conveniently forget is the fact, that there are more Games sold every year. Since those are digital goods and copy costs are near zero, those companies are making more money each year already. They also pretty much killed the ability to sell used Games, except for Console Games with a physical medium.
Also: why should the consumers have to pay for the ballooning Overhead that those companies have? Don’t tell me you need a hundred million dollars in your marketing department to sell a GOOD/GREAT game. That is Bullshit.
I'm not disagreeing with you by saying this, but I can imagine Apple sweetening the prospect by adding an AppleTV "Pro" to the ecosystem that will play intensive iPhone games like this with controller support. Tack-on MacOS playability as well and 1 purchase could mean you can play your save no matter where you are, across any platform within the ecosystem. Again, not saying this will happen. Just imagining how it could go.
I think that’s definitely what’s going to happen. The gaming market is going to see some huge disruption in the next few years as companies who didn’t want to bother with the console market can start an ecosystem based around platform agnostic stores/ecosytems.
Game prices are already pushing $100+ when you factor in season passes, special editions, and microtransactions. Basically every AAA game has some combo of all of these.
So someone will take his mods and make actual pirate versions of them. If he's trying to Streisand it, couldn't have done a better job. I don't see it being very profitable, though...
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the answer to the question that’s posted all the time on gaming forums of: “Phones are so powerful these days, especially compared to the Switch, why can’t we have real games on phones without microtransactions?”
Fortunately, Resident Evil 4 will support universal purchase. That means if you buy the game for your iPhone 15 Pro, but you also own an iPad and/or Mac that is equipped with an M1 chip or newer, you can play across all three of those devices without having to double dip.
Obviously that's a stigma Capcom is trying to break through. Most phones/tablets these days are even more powerful than a Switch, yet people pay $60 for games on the Switch but not on phones?
Can't help but feel like that was a missed opportunity. Exploration being risky could lead the player to make meaningful choices with meaningful consequences. It certainly seemed to have that effect in Dark Souls (yes I just invoked Dark Souls please don't dogpile me).
web.archive.org/web/20230924045050/…/PureDarkHe started hiding his count but he was at 11k last week and his most popular/cheapest tier is $5 USD so he makes 55k a month. So basically 660k+ a year.
ign.com
Aktywne