If people buy it anyway at the full price, then the game publisher will correctly deduce that it indeed worth at least that much money for enough people (otherwise those people would not part ways with that much money to get it) to get that game as soon as it comes out.
In Economics, perfect pricing (which is not yet possible but, damn, they’re really trying hard) from the point of view of a seller (i.e. for maximum profits) is when they get exactly as much money from each individual as that person is willing to pay for it, so the “ideal” world for them would be individually-tailored prices going as high as it could possibly go for each person whilst still managing to sell to that person.
As they can’t as of yet sell at different prices to each and every individual, they’ve gone as far as they can (regional pricing, different prices in different stores with different audiences and, maybe more importantly, time-from-publishing pricing) and then push prices up and up slowly whilst checking if in total the price increase has yielded more money or not (they have no issue with loosing customers due to higher prices if in total they still make more money at the price point than at a lower price point).
IMHO, in the face of this, the easist and best reaction for somebody who wants the game but does not think it’s worth $70, is to wait until the price falls down to how much they’re willing to pay for it (even better, let it fall some more and buy a couple more games with the savings). In fact if enough people do it the price will fall much faster as the publisher’s sales data analysis will signal to them that they’ve put the game at too high a price point and they’ll lower it trying to pick up the “money left on the table” from those who are interested but not at that price point before those people lose interest.
So you just had to write what in your eyes is “obvious” for everybody as a comment, which hence is redundant, about how some other comment is “redundant and obvious”…
Jokes on them, my limit is wildly low compared to this. Most sports games are worth 20 bucks max at this point, the main content is just reskinned gameplay with updated stats and an unnecessary twist on controls. Its DLC.
They know that people are going to pay for it. For exactly the same reason I haven’t bought a Formula 1 game in a few years. Every year it’s just not quite worth the 60-70 euro’s for me. I’m not even that mad about the 70 euro price tag if I get something nice for it in return, everything has gotten more expensive and games have been 60 euro since forever, but last year’s game with some small changes is not going to cut it for that price.
EA sucks. They suck, EA fucking sucks and can I say it again? Fuck EA. Price gouging for shitty products. What they did to battlefront 2? Lootbox pay to win bullshit. The AI in EAs F1 is so abysmal, 2022 was such a colossal disappointment and they are saying 80 bucks USD is a sale price for F1 2023. Naw fam fuck EA and their entire product line. I’ll only buy on steam sale at 70% discount on principal
Oh totally. Over 2000 hours in it. I love it but it could have been so much better. Imagine balanced teams (like Nintendo does with Mario cart) instead of total domination by one side which is western philosophy encapsulated. Imagine showing server population so we can join what’s bumping instead of showing no data for fear of investment analysis hurting stock price. Imagine if they supported the community at fucking all.
I love BF2 but so much wasted potential it’s just depressing
ROFL! Dude asks why people “still play that shit” without offering an argument for discussion and you’re telling me I’m aggressive and that I should offer reasons before posting??
Sure. I’ll play along-
How about…. People play it because they enjoy sports games. Is that’s a good reason? And for the record… if I wanted to be aggressive,I would have countered with “why do people play shit like Pokémon, or DBZ games? I didn’t do this because it’s not for me to decide what others play or why. Nor do I judge anyone for what they play regardless of my opinion.
Perhaps this is not a sentiment shared often in this community.
I make a difference between referring to an inanimate object as „shit“ and getting up in someones face about it.
This is why I say it’s aggressive. And yes, you would have been right to call them out and say „because people enjoy it.“ or something along those lines.
It’s not worth discussing this at length. Dude has a point that many people have a problem with the software for different reasons and you have a point that people enjoy that stuff. All I‘m saying is please be kind to eachother.
A lot of people are only passingly interested in video games. For people that just want to sit down and play something having to learn about the game and how it’s played is work, not entertainment. I can see how someone who only games maybe once a week could have some real fun playing a sports game. It’s very easy to pick up because they already know the rules. I don’t agree personally, for me games are the most fun when I’m interacting with a new mechanic, but I am also willing to grind for hours optimizing and learning to push the game to its limits. If you don’t have the time for all that, but you still want to game, sports games are a perfect entry point. Not even I can come up with a justification for the pricing though.
The whole experience surrounding Tomb Raider nude codes was a pre-teen wake-up call to what the world was really like. That so many different people would just KNOWINGLY LIE!? About this, of all things!? Do you know the strength of the forces with with you so callously toy? So nothing is sacred then. And the world is cruel. Got it.
In a situation where sales are legal and the publisher or platform later choose to remove it from sale then it usually remains available in your library for download.
But in a situation where the publisher never had a legal right to sell the product then they were never legally able to grant distribution rights to the platform? In that case the license offered to the purchaser is invalid and it may be pulled from libraries.
Has anyone ever really noticed how samey everything looks right now? It’s a bit hard to explain, because it’s not the aesthetics of any kind of art style used, but the tech employed and how it’s employed. Remember how a lot of early 3D in film just looked like it was plastic? It’s like that, but with a wider variety of materials than plastic. Yet every modern game kinda looks like it’s made using toys.
Like, 20 years from now I think it would be possible to look at any give game that is contemporary right now and be able to tell by how it looks when it was made. The way PS1 era games have a certain quality to them that marks when they were made, or how games of the early 2000’s are denoted by their use of browns and grays.
Oh yeah this isn’t a complaint, because I think it looks good. It’s just I notice it, and it probably is from almost everything being made on UE5 these days. However, I think MGSV was one of the first games to have this particular look to it, and that’s on its own in-house engine (FOX Engine). It could just be how the lighting and shadowing are done. Those two things are getting so close to photorealism that it’s the texturing and modeling work that puts things (usually human characters) into the uncanny valley. A scene of a forest can look so real… And then you put a person walking through it and the illusion is lost. lol
It’s everyone using UE-based mocap tools that cause the hyperrealistic-yet-puffy faces, is what I suspect he’s talking about, along with the same photogrammetry tools/libraries.
Honestly the biggest thing missing in general lighting is usually rough specular reflections and small scale global illumination, which are very hard to do consistently without raytracing (or huge light bakes)
Activision has a good technique for baking static light maps with rough specular reflections. It’s fairly efficient, however it’s still a lot of data. Their recent games have been in the 100-200 gb range apparently. I’m sure light bakes make up a good portion of that. It’s also not dynamic of course.
So, what I’m saying is, raytracing will help with this, hardware will advance, and everyone will get more realistic looking games hopefully.
Games look samey because Game Studios don’t have ideas anymore. They just try to sell 20 h of playtime - that is essentially empty. It’s literally just a bunch of materials and “common techniques” squashed into a sellable product. In the early times of gaming, people had ideas before they had techniques to implement them. Nowadays, we have techniques and think the ideas are unimportant. It’s uninspired and uninspiring. That’s why.
I think it’s really hilarious thay they think it will sell enough to have multiple games, considering how bad this game is being received. Thats not even to mention how dysmal the sales were for Star Wars Outlaws, Skull and Bones, and Avatar Frontiers of Pandora.
This game will be a colossal flop, and Ubisoft absolutely deserves it. That is what you get when you ignore feedback from literally everyone.
Even if this game functioned worse than Unity at launch, there’s basically no world where it’s a “colossal” flop, but it would affect sales of the next game. Plenty of previews are positive, so even if this entry is less well-regarded than its predecessors, it will still have its fans and likely do better than Outlaws.
Plenty of early reviews for were positive for Concord and Dragon Age Veilguard, but those ended up being pretty worthless reviews. Access media has ruined critic credibility. It would be stupid to trust a reviewer that knows their media outlet won’t get review copies of the next game from a publisher if they review the game badly, because that will absolutely change the review to be more favorable.
If Star Wars Outlaws, a game connected to an IP that absolutely has a way bigger market than Assassin’s Creed, did that badly, I can almost guarantee that Shadows will not do better than Outlaws.
Concord reviews being semi-positive don’t matter when the audience knows that their purchase is worthless without a critical mass of other people purchasing it. Veilguard actually did do well; probably profitable already or will get there in the next few years on the game’s “long tail”, and it does have its fans. It was just under EA’s projections/expectations, but we also understand from reporting what that game was rescued from. What we know about Shadows is that its pre-order numbers are tracking with Odyssey, the second-best-selling game in the franchise, and people have been dying for this series to go to feudal Japan for a long time. It would take extremely negative reviews to truly sink this game financially.
We know they sold 1.5M copies in only a few months at an MSRP of $70. We know that very few games cost more than $100M to make, and last I heard, this one barely squeaked over that line. You can do the math there. It won’t take long for this game to become profitable if it isn’t already.
You’ve got to tick the other games you want in the dlc page after going to the game’s properties in steam.
You can do that now to add the ones you want to play. For some reason if you just click download without selecting any other dlc, it just installs Reach.
I was thinking it would carry my selections from Steam Deck over. I went ahead and started the downloads this morning and they’re all done now thankfully
lemmy.world
Ważne