I’m not saying don’t try it, because some people do like it, but I don’t think Starfield will ever be worth the time it takes to play, let alone having to pay for it too. It absolutely does not respect the player’s time, and there’s no content in it that I saw that’s worth playing. I didn’t see anything when I played, but I think I’ve seen just about everything after watching a stupid number of videos discussing the game. None of it is particularly interesting (in fact, I think most of it is fundamentally uninteresting because they weren’t willing to ask how their universe could be different from our own).
BG3 though is absolutely worth playing whenever you decide to play it. I don’t think it’s getting a DLC because Larian said they’re working on something new and unrelated now, but it’ll probably still see some patches and the price will come down, as well as more mods being available.
I recently bought the OG Dragon’s Dogma for $6. There are a ton of QoL and fun mods that improve gameplay, no DRM crap, and the game performs really well overall. Zero reasons IMO to buy DD2 right now and put up with an inferior experience and Denuvo.
I mean personally I wouldn’t want to game like that on my phone, as it will almost certainly kill the battery and I need my phone for… well phone things.
But I don’t really see why it being $60 is at all weird. It’s a $60 AAA game everywhere else too. Same game as it is there.
Edit: and it also unlocks the game on m1 or newer iPads and macOS devices… really not seeing why this is so egregious. It’s $60 on steam too
Yeah honestly the idea that a port should cost less because it’s a worse experience is stupid. As long as effort was put in and the game is still playable and as enjoyable an experience as other platforms whoever made it has any right to charge what they see fit for that platform.
Now should people buy it? Probably not and if it doesn’t run as well you can absolutely raise the argument of it was a pointless cash grab anyways but…
Being upset that a developer wants to get paid for a game no matter what platform they put it on… not a big deal
you gotta take into account that the conceptual design phase has been completely eliminated from the process. And lots of the core logic would've been ported over wholesale. one example you can find is searching about the code in the katamari ports, where there's parts of the code left behind that don't do anything, and point to ps2 libraries that don't exist in Unity.
while there's nothing revealed here on how much is just copy/pasted over, I'm sure they'd be motivated to bring over as much as they can when they were initially estimating the work needed for the project, and then test the hell out of it. A majority of the graphics engine would probably have to be remade if they didn't aim to emulate it, and would be one of the major challenges in a mobile port of a higher-end console/pc game, but the assets/resources would be copied over and no work on that beyond ensuring it looks fine on the target resolution and framerate; maybe even with the use of automated AI upscaling/downscaling to reduce that workload even further. I find it safe to assume a straight port doesn't usually require the same or more amount of work as the original
Yup the switch mortal Kombat 1 port likely used a tool to just downgrade and straight port the game over and this it didn’t actually run particularly well and was a stupid and low effort port… but someone still made that game before that was done.
So if they want to shoot themselves in the foot and cripple their own launch and game with bad performance that’s their own issue and one that is a separate conversation to them charging what they think is appropriate for their brand new game.
that's kinda the crux of my spiel though, what they charge communicates what they believe the work is worth, and they're either saying the previous work is worth less now, or this lesser amount of work is worth more
I agree, they have the right to charge what they want, but what they communicate with the price feels like spitting in the face of their playerbase, which, again, they have the right to do
and yeah, MK1 on switch is rough, and feels like they just ported over as much of the graphics engine as they could, and completely turned off all the fancier effects. Then they downscaled all the assets on top of that to make it super oof
Exactly, people have been buying worse switch ports for higher prices than the PS/XB versions for the portability for years now, phones shouldn’t be different if it’s a playable port optimised for them.
I understand your perspective, but the way I see it, it’s like renting a movie at home versus seeing it in a theater. For some people, the extra money to go to a theater is worth it. I’m not paying $20+ to see a movie once at home though, and especially not to see it on my phone. Discounted price for a discounted experience. If they want to charge $20 for the mobile version, and $40 for MacOS, then I’d be way more likely to try a triple-A game on a phone.
But you get it with no compromises on MacOS, so why would they discount the price there? This is buy once, play "anywhere" (anywhere that's good for Apple). You don't pay less for a game you only play on a Steam Deck either.
Sure, then $20 for the mobile app, and $60 for MacOS (which should include a mobile copy). That would work for me too. I don’t have a Steam Deck, but I for sure would not pay full price for a game just to play on the Steam Deck.
I think the Switch and the Steam Deck have shown that portable games are worth every bit as much as non-portable, but in both of these cases, they output easily to the larger experience at home. I think Apple is providing that too. $60 still makes sense to me, since you're always buying the MacOS version which includes a mobile copy, which you said was acceptable.
What if you don’t have a Mac though, the MacOS copy is going to waste. I think Nintendo games are far too expensive as well. I own some, but I’m not happy with the price of the games (my kids love them though).
It's not a Mac OS copy and an iOS copy any more than I have a Steam Deck copy of a game and a desktop copy of a game. From what I can tell, it's the same thing. Obviously this is beneficial for Apple keeping you in their ecosystem, but this serves the same function. Quite frankly, I'm not sure why you'd have an iPhone if you don't have a Mac, but I know plenty of people do.
I’m not sure why you’d have an iPhone if you don’t have a Mac
iPhones outsell MacBooks something like 10:1. The majority of people with iPhones, if they are playing games not on their phone, are using consoles and/or PC’s.
I guess that depends. A lot of flagship phones are reaching $1k+ these days, and I rely on my phone for a TON of things. I need the support, battery life, and I enjoy the Apple ecosystem (not just my MacBook, but the watch and AirPods too). I’ve found it made sense for me. I guess the value of things really depends on the buyer’s perspective.
Wait, so you do have a Macbook. Maybe it's not M1, but if you enjoy that part of the ecosystem, you'll probably upgrade to one at some point. At which point, that gives you a "Mac copy" of the game too.
Oh, yeah. Sorry if I didn’t mention that. I have an M1 Pro. I still wouldn’t play the game on my MacBook. I have an ultra wide screen and there’s no way my Mac would run the game well. I have a gaming desktop that is much more suitable for desktop gaming.
Heh, honestly, this is the problem with Apple's value proposition when it comes to gaming. You'll see elsewhere in this thread that I don't think Apple has shown they know how to really make a solid gaming offering, and this is a large part of why.
Yeah, the confusion by everyone around this pricing is really counterintuitive.
The product is exactly the same as its console / PC counterpart.
How well it runs on Apple products remains to be seen.
I for sure would not opt for it since I have a high end gaming PC.
Also, especially considering how Apple pulls products from their stores w/o refund…
I do hope that this sells somewhat well and opens the door for more developers to release their games on iOS / Mac.
I still think that Apple could build a proper gaming rig / console, but are in the chicken / egg situation still.
Apple is no doubt considering moving more heavily into the gaming space. They’re looking for more revenue streams to keep feeding the corporate fantasy of perpetual growth, and there are only so many sweat shop laborers they can exploit. Wouldn’t surprise me at all for them to buy a publisher like EA and create some steam competitor (or just leverage the Mac app store).
This is what MS are gearing up to fight with their acquisitions and infrastructure. If you can buy a game on iTunes and it works across your Mac, AppleTV, iPhone, etc, then they need to have the same in the Xbox brand across console, PC, cloud, etc. Sony are only now putting games on PC years late and that business model is looking tired already, multi device is the future.
It’s a compelling proposition, and not one Microsoft can compete with. At least not in the mobile/tablet space. Cloud gaming is all well and good, but native hardware will always be superior. Microsoft is crazy not to be considering a 1st party handheld like the steam deck. Or at least a gaming-centric UI for small screen devices. Even just integrating something like the Xbox UI would be an improvement.
I think they’re banking on the handheld PC market picking up for that. Obviously Steamdeck was a non-starter for native as it uses Linux, but they threw their weight behind the ROG Ally and packaged that with several months of Gamepass.
That’s pretty good. Play anywhere across an ecosystem is always the right move. Sony expecting people to double dip on PS5/PC releases is going to look pretty old pretty soon.
I wonder if anybody remembers when it leaked Microsoft had a concept of a plan about restrictions on Xbox discs (used/shared), everyone gasped, Sony mocked them in a video about “sharing discs” on PS4 and became a turning point in the console wars…
Even a decade later: Remove discs at your peril! Half the reason I’ve even bought consoles is for Blu-ray movies (still unbeatable AV quality). Sony won both the console and disc drive wars FFS! Still not enough. “Line must go up more!”
I hope MS is at least mocking them back right now, for giggles. Before announcing a very similar thing next year…
Yeah. It’s crazy to think that USB can now handle 240W. And yes, the naming conventions are terribad but, at least the standards are actually open, unlike VESA’s.
They are doing this because a rotten corpse doesn’t force them to compete, they can do whatever they want. If MS didn’t shit the bed with the Series X/S, Sony would be trying harder to please customers, or at least not actively screwing them (see also: 800 EUR PS5 Pro without disc drive or vertical stand).
Sony would rather flush hundreds of millions of dollars down the drain that was Concord than give fans one of the easiest layups imaginable by putting Bloodborne on PS5 and PC
First time I played WoW I liked that you were given a guided tour of your races homeland as it explained the world. The last time I played WoW I had to to a tutorial island that explained nothing about the world and then dumped me in an expansion with characters I had no fucking idea who they were and why I should care about them. Even ESO doesn’t prevent new players from playing the base storyline and FFXIV still requires you to complete ARR before moving to the first expansion. I dropped WoW pretty quickly again because I felt too lost.
I started playing recently ish having never played WoW before, and good god the intro feels practically designed to drive new players away. The tutorial was so tedious and boring and taught me so little about how to actually play that I’m still not even entirely sure what I’m really supposed to do or how to even begin to understand the story/timeline. The game as a whole just feels so needlessly difficult and obtuse, I’ve ended up really just logging on every once in awhile for events to grab any cute pets or whatever mounts the game will graciously allow me to get without buying a sub
Wait, they just give you mounts now? You used to have to wait until level 20 to buy a mount. Level 20 took forever, and then you could only buy the slow mount for your race. You didn’t get a fast mount until level 40, which took a very long time. Then you had to grind reputation for different factions to buy their expensive mounts. Some rare mounts could be found through seasonal events or in raids. I ran Tempest Keep every week for 2.5 years before I finally got Ashes of Al’ar to drop for me.
You used to have to wait until level 20 to buy a mount. Level 20 took forever, and then you could only buy the slow mount for your race. You didn’t get a fast mount until level 40, which took a very long time.
Ha, rookie numbers. In my time you had to wait for level 40 to buy your slow mount. Fast mounts were bound to level 60 I believe and were insanely expensive (I sold so much stuff in the auction house to get the money together in those days). Around level 20 or 30 Hunters got an aspect which increased their running speed and druids could shapeshift to travel form.
Correction: final fantasy xiv requires you to play ALL of the story to get to the rest of the playerbase, which is, and I’m not exaggerating, probably 700 hours
Oh yeah it’s a slog, the great divider that everyone has to overcome. They need to do another pass on reducing the amount of stuff and one of the problems is that buried in the trivial ARR stuff is some important information for later. It’s sadly in a state of “just wait, it gets good after the first season”.
I know. It’s the only MMO I stay actively subscribed too. I pre-ordered endwalker digital collectors edition and will be doing the same for dawntrail. It’s one of my favorite games.
You are exaggerating. You can complete the entire MSQ up to EW in less than 3 days in-game playtime. Source: You can find raiders with alts that have sprout icons, and I’ve done it myself twice.
But I get it, you need to know exactly what to do and skip cutscenes. You also can’t do any side questing and once you leave an area, never look back. Which most would rightly criticize me for suggesting. The story is good.
Honestly, if the concern is anything other than the story, it’s probably not the game for you anyways.
I’d also like to point out that most content is built to be relevant, so you’ll be doing content with the rest of the player base in just a few hours of playtime. We have the opposite queue problem in contrast to other games: You aren’t waiting for other new players to show up to complete content; you are waiting for the servers to fit you into a party that hundreds of other players of various levels want to also do.
Same for me, I wanted to introduce someone into WoW during COVID and for nostalgia reasons, only to see that they took away the adventure and exploration and transformed it into a soulless husk. I dropped it immediately.
You seem to be knowledgeable about FF so I ask, is it a good time to start playing? I feel like there’s a lot to get through before I can get current in time for the new expansion. Is there something I can boost like in wow to get current. Without that then while I can afford it, it still feels bad to pay a sub for old content ya know.
No. No way to skip the story as far as I’m aware and it’d be a bad idea honestly as the story continues right from ARR to all the expansions, endwalker has a lot of callbacks to everything before it as it’s a swansong of something like 8 years. Dawntrail is the first new major story arc since FFXIV’s release. Leveling isn’t so bad currently because it’s boosted to get as many people to 90 as much as possible but there’s no max level item either as far as I’m aware as you pick a class then that class becomes a specialisation so you’re constantly getting new abilities to learn for your rotation. It would defeat the point of learning your specialisation if you skipped the leveling and quests of it to max level and had everything unlocked.
However, you will have no idea how mechanics work, and you will frustrate both yourself and team mates. This could even get you reported as trolling in extreme cases.
Edit: it also only skips one expansion at a time, and at $11 USD per expansion, that’s $44 and you STILL only get to Endwalker. No skip for that yet, although I bet there will be when Dawntrail drops. Still, why pay $55 to skip the game? That’s insane.
None of that means Google wasn’t exploiting anticompetitive measures to ensure everyone has to pay their exorbitant 30% tax in their app store. At least, that’s what the State of California determined when Epic took them to court.
I’m pointing out that what the article is showing (Epic opening their own app store) was always an option for them. The court ruling on Google’s app store didn’t enable that. It was always an option. This isn’t true on the Apple side, though. A non-Apple app store on iOS would be a significant change.
they’ve taken Apple, Google, and Samsung to the cleaners over this shit.
The article is talking about a new app store. A new app store wasn’t part of “this shit”. Yes, Epic sued and got changes to Google’s app store pricing, but that has nothing to do with this article’s topic. I’m not that invested in this conversation, but you asked why I responded and that’s why. I hope you have a fantastic day!
Months after the initial announcement, the prolific game and technology company announced today that the Epic Games Store is now available for iOS and Android devices.
My whole thread was specifically about Android. You know what? You’re looking to salvage a victory out of this based upon pedantry. If you’re that bad off that you need that, go ahead and take the win if you can call it that. I hope your circumstances get better in the future.
This isn’t your thread, it’s mine. You replied to me. My comment was clearly about Apple (among others). The OP was about Apple. There’s nothing I need to “salvage”. Have a nice day.
The iOS version also has nothing to do with their lawsuit of Apple, they lost that one. It’s due to an unrelated law in the EU, which is why this is only available in the EU.
I don’t need a link to the DMA. I’ve known about it since before it existed. If you think it is coincidence that it was created shortly after the Epic v Apple lawsuit while addressing the exact same problem, your logic has failed you. Still waiting on your source.
A bit hypocritical given you’ve been the one using “coincidence” as a source. What I’m trying to tell you is there is not any documented proof for what you are saying - fuck, maybe you’re right. But you can’t go around spouting “facts” because you find the timing too coincidental. There has been no mention of Epic Games in any court documentation regarding Apple’s violation of DMA.
A bit hypocritical given you’ve been the one using “coincidence” as a source.
I don’t think you understand the meaning of “hypocritical”.
you can’t go around spouting “facts” because you find the timing too coincidental.
I never said it was a “fact”. Just an incredibly obvious observation.
there is not any documented proof for what you are saying
Nor is there any for what you’re saying. Proof for either doesn’t exist but only an irrational person is going to look at the correlation staring you in the face and say it’s a coincidence (which is in fact what you’re doing, BTW).
The EU has had digital legislations since long before that lawsuit. Or do you think Epic is also responsible for GDPR?.
So you think that the European commission saw a lawsuit in a different country and decided “We need that” then rushed to write the entirety of DMA in less than 4 months. If you think DMA and Epic lawsuits are related the most possible order of events is that Epic saw what was going to be passed in the EU and decided to suit Apple and Google to get the same in the USA
Somehow related is pretty far away from claiming they are the same thing.
First of all they’re both consumer protection laws related to IT, which was my point that EU already has a track of enforcing these kinds of law, and it has nothing to do with one irrelevant lawsuit in the US.
But also GDPR is a law to protect customers data, after it was enforced and people saw the big companies were not untouchable other laws started to be discussed to further regulate them. Parallel to this the DSM was being enforced, part of which has the P2B Regulations, which regulates unfair contracts and trading practices. After both of these came into effect a new law, which is essentially the child of these two, started being discussed which would regulate how large companies corner the market and other abusive practices. To think that this law has nothing to do with GDPR but instead is because of a random lawsuit some random company lost in some random country is ridiculous.
Just because he says it doesn’t instantly make it false…It’s absolutely true.
I find it hard to believe someone so invested in this outcome knows nothing about it.
I don’t know who or what this sentence is supposed to be referencing. No one doesn’t know anything about this. We all seem to understand what the problem is except you.
One was a jury trial and the other wasn’t. Google had plenty of records of their internal communications but Apple had a different practice. This article by The Verge does a decent job at highlighting the differences.
Yeah. I’ve had Amazon’s for a very long time. There was never anything preventing epic from making their own store. Epic was trying to make Google play store host the download for the epic game store.
It’s a bit more than that, though. Epic lost their lawsuit against Apple but they won theirs against Google.
Google was colluding with OEMs to stifle competition on Android, and that practice was determined to be anticompetitive. Sure you could always jump through the Google-mandated hoops and install a third-party store, but then you could also always install other browsers on Windows even when Internet Explorer was the default, and that was also determined to be anticompetitive.
Which is silly, since Apple has gone beyond colluding, and simply blocks everything they can within their walled garden. You’ve never even had the option to install other app stores or sideload apps on an iPhone. Meanwhile, you’ve always been able to on Android. For the past several years it will even hold your hand and highlight/show you what options you need to allow to do it within the OS.
I agree, but that’s what the courts decided. IANAL but I’m assuming it hinges on the pretense that Android is supposed to be an open ecosystem where partners and OEMs are given fair treatment, while iOS is a top-to-bottom “product” controlled by a single company that makes their own business arrangements.
In short, Apple deciding to block Epic from having their own app store, fine. Google bribing/coercing Android OEMs to prioritize the Play Store and not pre-install or facilitate the Epic Store, not fine.
I don’t think the courts would have cared if Google locked down their own Pixel phones to block out Epic, but it’s the act of throwing their weight around as the OS provider to their business partners (the OEMs) that they took issue with.
There are alternative stores on Android since forever.
From 1, Opening a secondary store on Android was always an option.
30% they claim is abusive is the industry standard, i.e. no one is taking advantage of their monopoly to enforce that, because even in markets without a monopoly that’s the amount charged.
Epic lost their lawsuit against Apple, which was the only company he was suing that actually enforced a monopoly in their platform.
Secondary stores are allowed on Apple in the EU as a result of DMA which has nothing to do with Epic.
From 5, Opening a secondary store on Apple is now an option regardless of what Epic did.
So you have one company that sued two others to be able to launch their store there, one of the companies wasn’t preventing them from doing so, and they lost their lawsuit against the other one. Completely unrelated to that, the EU forced that second company to allow third-party stores. Conclusion, Epic’s lawsuit has nothing to do with this announcement.
There are alternative stores on Android since forever.
I’ve already addressed this in other replies below. This goes beyond the existence of app store and into the abusive nature of them. Here’s some light reading for you.
Opening a secondary store on Android was always an option.
You’re just repeating yourself. Number go up, I guess?
30% they claim is abusive is the industry standard
Your parents should have taught you when you were 5 that just because other people are doing it doesn’t make it okay.
Epic lost their lawsuit against Apple
Well the EU picked up where the US failed. That’s why they have an app store. But Epic continues the fight regardless. As mentioned elsewhere, they won their lawsuit against Google with the state of California stating Google’s app store is indeed a monopoly. Epic is responsible for both.
as a result of DMA which has nothing to do with Epic.
Highly doubt that that is a coincidence. It has everything to do with Epic.
Apple is now an option regardless of what Epic did.
You’re repeating yourself again.
Conclusion, Epic’s lawsuit has nothing to do with this announcement.
I’ve already addressed this in other replies below. This goes beyond the existence of app store and into the abusive nature of them. Here’s some light reading for you.
Irrelevant, the news from OP is that secondary stores are now allowed on Android and iOS. Not defending Google or anything, but whatever abuse they did is irrelevant to this point. The fact remains, other stores exist on Android.
You’re just repeating yourself. Number go up, I guess?
No, 2 is a conclusion from 1. You didn’t even got through 1 properly trying to bring whatever bad things Google might do with their power, fact 1 is there are other stores on Android, fact 2, which is a conclusion derived from fact 1 is that Epic could have released their own store there regardless of the lawsuit. This takes Android off the picture from the remaining of the discussion.
Your parents should have taught you when you were 5 that just because other people are doing it doesn’t make it okay.
That’s not the point, if someone claims that a company is using their monopoly power to force a high tax on developers, but the tax is the same on every other store regardless of being monopoly or not then their argument is bullshit. Why do you think developers pay 30% to Steam? If they thought Steam didn’t provided value they would just not release there. But they do, therefore 30% is not abusive, it’s what developers are willing to pay for the service.
Well the EU picked up where the US failed. That’s why they have an app store. But Epic continues the fight regardless. As mentioned elsewhere, they won their lawsuit against Google with the state of California stating Google’s app store is indeed a monopoly. Epic is responsible for both.
No they didn’t, DMA is an extension of GDPR and P2B Regulations, it has nothing to do with Epic.
Highly doubt that that is a coincidence. It has everything to do with Epic.
Like I told you in your other reply, laws as complex as DMA don’t get written in a short amount of time, it’s impossible for these to be related.
You’re repeating yourself again.
Again, I’m drawing a conclusion from a point before. From 1 you have 2 which means the lawsuit has nothing to do with Android, and from 5 you have 6 which means their lawsuit had nothing to do with iOS either, since those are the two platforms being discussed we have the overall conclusion that the lawsuits and this announcement are unrelated.
You haven’t disproven any of the propositions, nor found any logical error with the conclusion from those propositions (in fact both times you thought the conclusion was just a repetition of the proposition before). Just claiming I’m wrong is not gonna cut it, unless you have any facts that counter anything I said my conclusion stands.
Man, how about you rather try to not make the game an insufferable grind fest. I love the gameplay so much, but each time I decide to log back in and give it another go it doesn’t take long before that fun layer is peeled back and I see the grind lurking underneath.
the grind keeps attach rate though, it’s no good for them if you log in, have fun, do the stuff and log out again for six months
this is what all these GaaS are based around, I gotta grind this magical stick, I gotta grind Diamond, I gotta grind this battlepass or I’m losing money!
Honestly if I could play all of the game without having to grind like a fucking mad man, I'd probably regularly buy expansions and pay for a season pass.
I love the coop. I love the gunplay. I love most of the game except the grind.But I have kids and real life shit to do. I tried getting back into it during witch queen, but the amount of time I had to spend daily on it made it damn near impossible to play the dungeons and stuff. I had a little extra free time when I did that too. By the time I managed to hit the cap, I realized I was not having any fun doing it. So I quit. Had a clan I liked chatting and playing with. It was cool. But I'm just not going to keep paying for and playing a game that just feels like a tedious as fuck job.
you aren’t profitable to these GaaS companies, you have kids and real life shit to do. you aren’t gonna bring them in money.
The people bringing in the money do the grind. it’s what all these GaaS games are. I too would enjoy if these studios made traditional games that are made to be enjoyable rather than made to keep attach rates up. but that’s not what they set out to make.
I mean I was purchasing the expansions and the season pass. And on games that I feel I'll stick with for a while I even get some cosmetic stuff at times.
I doubt it is even a matter of them measuring the profit. I imagine that a lot of it is they (and many other gaas games that aren't pay to win) are trying to be the only game a person plays. To make them feel devoted to it. Like they would have wasted so much of they give up (sunk cost fallacy) and that by switching games they'll get behind in their main game. Because of they aren't profitable with a repeatedly paid game and season pass off of a person then they have some real bad management. In fact, me paying for a season pass and the expansions and using the server less should make me more profitable than most players except for the whales that buy all the cosmetics too. Especially when Fortnite and Warframe are f2p and profitable.
except for the whales that buy all the cosmetics too. Especially when Fortnite and Warframe are f2p and profitable.
🔔 🔔 🔔
people paying for the cosmetics, and the battlepasses are the profit generators for GaaS games. Destiny just keeps their expansion setup because it’s even more extra money
think about it. Fortnite is free to play, and it’s funded epic games basically singlehandedly since, all the aquasitions, unreal engine, their store. it’s all fortnite money, it’s all battlepass and microtransactions
Also not gatekeeping modes and content I already paid for if I can’t afford the newest expansion, and just straight up removing content that was paid for
I hate grind, but I used to enjoy just playing D2 weekly, way beyond the weekly content.
Then they decided that literally everything needed to be a slog, and that being overpowered was bad, and they ruined my fun. I went from 80 hr weeks (I know this isn’t healthy) to 1 hour weeks over the course of a couple seasons. I still spent a lot of time after the launch of the latest DLC, but after that was done, and they upped the base difficulty by removing the effect of levels on almost all base content, I struggled to stay engaged. This season, I just gave up. I’ve got like 15 levels, when I usually have 200-300 in the battle pass.
I’m not saying they don’t have a grind problem, too, but it wasn’t what killed it for me.
Even the most terrible AAA games sell millions of copies these days. They more than make their money back with each one, the margins are slimmer but the volume is magnitudes higher than ever. Cry me a river.
This exact thought (volume) occurred to me when I saw the headline. They like to say that the price of games hasn’t increased in line with inflation, but I’d be interested to know how big the market was in the 80s, 90s, 2000s and today. I’d bet the market is orders of magnitude bigger today.
I’d be curious comparing these prices to median income or median disposable income. I’m guessing it tracks those numbers much closer than inflation, which wages haven’t kept pace with.
And the profitability has skyrocketed. The videogame industry is now one of the largest insudtries on the planet. A big driver has been normalisation of after-purchase items. Console players now pay to unlock their collar to the internet (ps+ and XBlive). Microtransactions add to this, and now battlepasses want $10+ every 50-90 days. Lootboxes normalizing near-gambling with overwatches success was a huge bar-lift in profitability expectations for shareholders.
Special editions are also hitting $90 and higher, plus those other expenditures. Ask “the gamers tm” and they’ll tell you you have to buy a special edition for $120 or you’re not a real fan anyway. Starfield has a $300 version. The Digital Premium doesn’t even come with the GAME! It’s another $35 after you already gave Microsoft $70.
Additionally, the work to make a new game has decreased. Assets are able to be salvaged from one engine to the next reducing the amount of work to make a game in UE6 after it was on UE5. the workforce has matured and can be taught as a class so there’s not nearly as many “self taught” making half a game. Roller Coaster Tycoon was made almost entirely by one dude. Obviously re-using assets is smart. But then to say you “built the game from the ground up” is false. Elden Ring was even praised for it
Marketing budgets have fuckin EXPLODED. A “Rule of Thumb” for indie devs is to spend HALF your budget on just marketing. Destiny allegedly spent 2.5× what they spent on development, for marketing. Publishing studios didn’t used to spend this much. “For every dollar on the game, spend another .25 to .50 on marketing”
Buying power has gone DOWN since ps1. You think I’m joking but federal minimum wage in the US is still 7.25. In 1994 (launch of ps1). It was 4.25 - adjusted for inflation thats $8.43. Meaning if you made minimum wage then, you’d be making more than minimum wage now, effectively. People are fucking broke and game companies want MORE money for games.
In 1994 when you bought a PS1 game you got THE WHOLE GAME. That was it. There was no merch drop pip-boy for the special edition. There was no Day-One patch. There was no “pay to get multiplayer”. There was no in-game shop to buy skins for the characters. All these features were intentionally cut to resell to consumers post-launch.
Games cost less to make now, but budgets went up. Buying power is down. Please stop defending corporate bullshit excuses about wanting more money, forever.
It was a specific example to show how AAA games reuse assets, not mtx. A low hanging fruit of that could be like…any sports game.
A similar example of good reuse could be EA and a specific Female Character Mesh they’ve had for awhile and they just keep reusing her. The photo example I found searching was Falck from BF 2042. Her hitbox and mesh is in Battlefront 2, as a First Order officer; and in Battlefield 5.
I dont outright hate reuse of things here and there - it saves money and time.
This drives me crazy every time I see it so I’m glad to see others recognizing this. Yes game production has gone up, but the market has massively increased. Your costs are fixed; doesn’t matter if you sell 10,000 copies or 10,000,000. More people are gaming than ever so when I see all these attempts to squeeze more money from consumers to address rising costs I have no sympathy for the publisher.
ign.com
Ważne