Bernardougf
Gold Member
Yes it is ... but people are not ready for this talk... especially consoles.. 499 consoles are a joke.
I kind of agree with this ... but matter of fact is it worked... go figureHigh quality? Shitty recycled minimum effort fast food games. Reusing the same bullshit for 15 years.
How Nintendo managed to brainwash so many people is beyond me. They're the most egregious, close minded, and ignorant company of the big 3. They single handedly stopped all of the Smash Melee tournaments.
How old are you talking about, how far back do you want to take us? 20 year old games used motion capture studios and stunt coordinators.
"If you are constantly putting your games on sale a few months after they launch you are encouraging a "just wait for a sale" mentality"Their pricing policy, high quality and not chasing after high end graphics are some of the smartest decisions Nintendo has made.
In the end it all comes down to how you manage expectations from your customers:
If you are constantly putting your games on sale a few months after they launch you are encouraging a "just wait for a sale" mentality
If your games mostly depend on increasingly better graphics to feel "new" then that's what people will expect from you studio and they'll be disappointed when you don't deliver (notice how most Nintendo fans don't give a crap if Tears of the Kingdom looks dated or most FROMSOFT fans don't give a crap if Elden Ring doesn't look as good as Demon Souls remake. But imagine if the next ND game doesn't look much better than TLOU2)
If your games launch broken and full of issues and it takes months worth of updated to fix them you are telling your customers they should wait next time.
As a random example imagine you bought Jedi Survivor on ps5 for $70.
To your disappointment you are greeted with a crappy performance mode running in the mid 40 fps and resolution that goes as low as like 680p.
6 months later you find out the game is not only on sale for $40 but also after multiple updates it has way fewer bugs and the performance mode now runs at a more acceptable 1080p and nearly locked 60fps.
Why would you buy the next Respawn game at launch if you know you can wait 3-6 months and get it for cheaper and when it's actually finished?
You know what I mean. I'm not talking about simplistic shit like the original Mortal Kombat. I'm talking motion capture costing tens of millions as if the developers are making a film.
Go back to making games. 2-3 year dev times and strictly managed. None of this nonsense of hiring 30 writers etc.
That's right. According to me. And according to the OP, games should now cost $100USD. And according to you, I'm wrong. Congratulations, you now know how forums work.So not fun at all?
According to you. Tell that to the millions more who buy games where they hadn't before. Tell that to the increased in completion rates. Tell that to the people spending 1000s of hours in the so called ripoffs. I might not agree with their tastes, but I don't dictate what other people find fun, or what is objectively more successful.
I'm sure you've heard the point that maybe you're not talking about the games themselves but how you generally felt at the time?
They do.A major flaw with this ideology is thinking that most gamers want the same high end, flashy and cinematic, over-polished technical experience that they do, so everyone should pay more to get those things? Truth couldn't be further from that point of view for lots of gamers.
That's like the government stepping in and telling all residents of an area they have to pay school taxes even if they don't have kids.
Yeah, I know they do, and it's bullshit.They do.
Don’t know if you’re kidding or don’t live in the States, but my neighbor has 0 kids and pays the same taxes as me: $15,800 year. 60% of which goes to the school district and 20% of which goes to the police. The rest goes to miscellaneous shit
Yup. Problem is some studios aim for the high budget AAA kind of game with uber production values. On the other hand, you can have some low budget highly reviewed and selling indie games. When it comes to gaming, the big companies typically amp up to the big games where there's no turning back. They might churn out some single A kind of budget games like EA and Unravel or MS doing Pentimentss and Ori, but generally once a gaming production gets big and corporatey, the games get bigger and costly and they pray due to brute force employee count and marketing budgets they can rake in sales by pure piles of resources at head office.A major flaw with this ideology is thinking that most gamers want the same high end, flashy and cinematic, over-polished technical experience that they do, so everyone should pay more to get those things? Truth couldn't be further from that point of view for lots of gamers.
That's like the government stepping in and telling all residents of an area they have to pay school taxes even if they don't have kids.
They do.
Don’t know if you’re kidding or don’t live in the States, but my neighbor has 0 kids and pays the same taxes as me: $15,800 year. 60% of which goes to the school district and 20% of which goes to the police. The rest goes to miscellaneous shit
Yup. Single with no kids. Make good money and totally self sufficient. No doubt I pay more taxes than some of my neighbours and I get squat back. All the people complaining about more services and better this or that, you should consider yourselves lucky that a lot of people out there pay taxes to cover your ass.Yeah, I know they do, and it's bullshit.
Who wishes to pay more for anything? Gaming or not. Mental like.
Maybe some of us don't actually care if ridiculously overblown projects aren't made. They take too long to produce for one thing. If we're not fans of annual rehashes, cinematic games and gaas endeavors, why should we care?Everyone does, or should, if the alternative is you lose the thing you want to keep. Like there is a political row in the UK about paying doctors and nurses more. They get a similar amount to their French counterparts, but they can get a lot more in the US, Canada and Australia. We could pay more to incentivise them to stay, or we could pay them as little as we can get away with, and then act dumbfounded when they leave for greener pastures. THAT is why you want to pay more - because the alternative is worse. I mean on this forum, I assume most of us do want to keep our hobby alive. I personally don't want to be left with only 2D pixel shooters and other shovelware that cost pennies to make.
Now this guy gets it, thank the maker someone gets it.Everyone does, or should, if the alternative is you lose the thing you want to keep. Like there is a political row in the UK about paying doctors and nurses more. They get a similar amount to their French counterparts, but they can get a lot more in the US, Canada and Australia. We could pay more to incentivise them to stay, or we could pay them as little as we can get away with, and then act dumbfounded when they leave for greener pastures. THAT is why you want to pay more - because the alternative is worse. I mean on this forum, I assume most of us do want to keep our hobby alive. I personally don't want to be left with only 2D pixel shooters and other shovelware that cost pennies to make.
If you want to contribute more I fully commend you for that. If you buy 2 copies of each game to support the developer I will gladly take one copy from you for free to help you do your part.Basically, seeing all these layoffs and hearing part of the reason is the risk and small margins...well, there's one simple solution: games need to cost more.
Over here in New Zealand, we currently pay $90-$120.00 or thereabouts a game, games have nearly always cost this much...going way, way back to at least the 90s. I don't really understand why video games are immune to going up in price (apart from the recent $10 USD bump), I mean...if it meant less lay offs, a healthier industry and people still wanting to work in the industry, surely us taking a $20-$30 bump on the chin is worth it?
I probably am not the median gamer in terms of earnings and such, but even when I was a broke Uni student in the late 90s & early 2000s, games were still $90-$120.00 a game here - and I paid it and was happy....that's like $200.00 now adjusted for inflation lol, so yeah, why do many feel SO strongly against games increasing in cost?
I've gotten $200 of value from Hell Divers 2 already, $500 of value from Cyberpunk etc etc - it just feels like it's a crazy good deal, but are we hurting our own industry by not being open to a price hike?
$80-90 USD a game, I'd go there - if it means the industry keeps on smashing it (that's mean $150.00 NZD for sure, painful, but worth it).
lol that's such a reductive way to look at what I saidKind of naïve to think that raising the price of games will mean no redundancies.
Most of my favorite ones from recent years have been one-dude games with ps1/2 graphics or pixel art. Among the few AAA i enjoyed, none had top-of the line graphics either.Everyone does, or should, if the alternative is you lose the thing you want to keep. Like there is a political row in the UK about paying doctors and nurses more. They get a similar amount to their French counterparts, but they can get a lot more in the US, Canada and Australia. We could pay more to incentivise them to stay, or we could pay them as little as we can get away with, and then act dumbfounded when they leave for greener pastures. THAT is why you want to pay more - because the alternative is worse. I mean on this forum, I assume most of us do want to keep our hobby alive. I personally don't want to be left with only 2D pixel shooters and other shovelware that cost pennies to make.
They are also infinitely less fun.
We're talking about numbers and you're talking about nebulous definitions of fun.That's right. According to me. And according to the OP, games should now cost $100USD. And according to you, I'm wrong. Congratulations, you now know how forums work.
Nobody's dictating anything to anyone. We are on a forum and I ventured an opinion that you happen to disagree with. That's okay. I don't care.
You've just compared some very difficult games to each other. You'd be better off comparing Spider-Man 2 2023 to Spider-Man 2 2004. Deus Ex to Mankind Divided. Super Mario Brothers 3 to Mario Wonder. Etcetera.If you think Spider-Man 2, or God Of War Ragnarok, are better games than Super Mario Brothers 3, or Doom, or Deus Ex - you're certainly welcome to hold that view. I just disagree with it and think that it's laughable. And that's okay.
Yes you do.And, I don't know what your last point even means, so I won't bother responding to it.
Correct. Over-estimation of growth. Was/is not sustainable in a world where people are no longer locked inside for a couple of years.I'm not. These companies ballooned irresponsibly during covid, layoffs were coming sooner or later.
It's really not that complicated. I think games were more fun in earlier eras. You don't. It's not an 'escape hatch', autismo. Calm down. You think games are better now?But "fun" is subjective and not easily measurable (though those engagement numbers would probably indicate that people are having more fun now than they were before). And you know that. People who make your argument know that. It's an easy escape hatch from having to answer questions about the objective reality.
They can charge whatever they want.
I'll buy the thing on sale for $20.
Suck on rocks, d-bag. You responded to my post where I was talking about data with "but games back then were more fun" as if it was a numerical, widely agreed on data point.It's really not that complicated. I think games were more fun in earlier eras. You don't. It's not an 'escape hatch', autismo. Calm down. You think games are better now?
![]()
The rest of your post is just babble and I'm not interested in responding to any of it.
That's a big if. Few people buy immersive sims as it is. Raise to 150 and the whole thing will likely come crashing down.I'll say this: if niche genre fans were willing to pay extra for their hardcore experiences, there'd be a lot more of them.
Immersive Sims are such a genre that could charge US$150+ and depending on the game's design it would still be a steal.
The genre would be alive and well and fans wouldn't have to wait for the stars to align and some misguided publisher attempt to test the market yet again with a new iteration.
I suspect many will be perfectly fine with just indie games. The aaa 'experiences' are starting to get quite grating. There is no art without risks.Everyone does, or should, if the alternative is you lose the thing you want to keep. Like there is a political row in the UK about paying doctors and nurses more. They get a similar amount to their French counterparts, but they can get a lot more in the US, Canada and Australia. We could pay more to incentivise them to stay, or we could pay them as little as we can get away with, and then act dumbfounded when they leave for greener pastures. THAT is why you want to pay more - because the alternative is worse. I mean on this forum, I assume most of us do want to keep our hobby alive. I personally don't want to be left with only 2D pixel shooters and other shovelware that cost pennies to make.
You're just rambling like an idiot. I have no idea what's got you so triggered, but it's really, really weird, and you're projecting your paranoia onto me.Suck on rocks, d-bag. You responded to my post where I was talking about data with "but games back then were more fun" as if it was a numerical, widely agreed on data point.
The only one babbling here is you. You've got nothing of note to respond with that isn't going to come off more simple minded than your previous posts, and now you're smugposting to pretend like you haven't lost the argument. You're not fooling anyone with 2 braincells to rub together.
He’s wiping the floor with you.You're just rambling like an idiot.
He's certainly wiping something - the tears from his eyes as he encounters an opinion he doesn't like.He’s wiping the floor with you.
“Pay high prices for bloated, cinematic AAA games or be left with only 2d pixel shooters” is a false dilemma.
They’re free to raise the prices, but the market will dictate whether that’s a success or not. More than likely what will happen is indie and AA games will come in and eat their lunch. Stuff like Helldivers, Palworld, Stardew Valley, and Vampire Survivors.
I think this just proves their points. Minus the online sub you don’t have to buy anything else if the base game is free. If games were able to go up in price and actually be based on a case by case pricing. I’d hope a decline in that would happen. DLC that comes out a year later I wouldn’t be against.Hell no. We are already paying More. Subs, dlc, season passes, microtransctions ... Etc!!
$60 o $70 is just an entry fee
I can see where you're coming from. However, there are already options that make the game $100 like Deluxe versions with early access, Collector's editions with overpriced merch, and DLC. Fortnite is free, but don't underestimate how many of these kids are dropping hundreds into the game. If you want to pay more, there's options. I tend to get pulled in by early access deluxe editions. They exploit my desire to be part of the discussion early on when the hype is at it's highest levels.$100 is no higher than what PS1 games cost in the mid 1990s, in real terms. Yet we're getting vastly better graphics (not just because of technology; the graphics on the right don't just happen magically because you have powerful hardware. An incredible amount of time, work and cost goes into getting these complex models into games compared to the old blocky 2D tank animations of the PS1 game) as well as vastly better everything else, gameplay mechanics, voice acting, music which wouldn't be out of place in a top Hollywood movie.
I'm happy for people to argue games should be cheaper but people should be honest and not pretend $70 is some sort of diabolical liberty. As hobbies go, in terms of bang for buck entertainment value versus cost, there are few cheaper hobbies than ours. Unfortunately our hobby seems to attract a lot of cheapskates who expect a lot but aren't prepared to pay a fair price. Most people here are just repeating that $100 is vastly more expensive than it used to be, which is simply false. With how much games have improved, it's cheap.
It's time devs looked at how Capcom came back, after overproduced trendchasing trash like RE6 blew up in their faces. Scaled back drastically in RE7, found cheaper smarter tech to produce, tight polished 7 hour campaign which focused on quality and fresh ideas and what made them successful in the beginning alike. Then build from there.
It was clearly unsustainable, not meeting sales expectations and the entire formula being completely dropped for a much cheaper production afterwards.Resident Evil 6 nonetheless ended up being one of the most popular, best-selling and profitable Resident Evil games. It was cool to hate on it and it did have some issues no doubt, but the criticism was overdone.