Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Gaming' started by cageymaru, Dec 10, 2016.
Read again. You are confusing me with a different poster. I didn't post 2 different things.
I haven't lost faith in $60 games, it's the industry that is moving in a direction that makes me uncomfortable buying the game in general.
For example, the yearly refresh of Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty games (less of the former, more of the latter), makes it hard to justify, for me at least, to keep paying $60 for every installment.
However, I have played many a game that wasn't released at $60, Tyranny is one such game, plenty of others also.
In fact, I have come to the point where I buy game I know I will play, without regarding too much for its price (I bought FO4 at $60 and got suckered into buying Season pass just before the price hike, but even then, I haven't regretted that purchase), it's more that I haven't had that much interest in the latest games, whereas I found a lot of indie games makes me feel more like at home (EG isometric view, platformers, scrollers etc), and these often do not cost $60, ever.
No Man's Sky was never on my radar because I wasn't too fond of its artistic style, not because of its unfulfilled promises and $60 price tag.
Like always, I vote with my wallet, but I rarely let price get in my way, unless it is abolutely stupid (COD games suffer greatly from that).
I think the only games I have paid 60 dollars for up front were Guild Wars 2 and Star Citizen (more than 60 though...)
I don't mind paying 60 dollars if in my opinion it will be worth it to me. I do pre order some games if I believe I will really enjoy it or want to support it at full price.
Most other games I try to wait till they go on sale or I have more time to play them.
There are a few exceptions but on the whole if its worth the cost to you the end player and you feel you will get your monies worth then have at.
From the article:
And I completely agree. I paid less than $20 each for Minecraft, Kerbal Space Program, Cities: Skylines, Mount and Blade: Warband...
The article isn't really saying that $60 is too much for a video game (when you account for inflation it should be higher), the author is saying that there's clearly something wrong with the industry when the $60+ 'AAA' titles consistently suck.
That's very far from the truth and you know it. If you referring to No Man's Sky it was an indie game, anyone who thought otherwise, well should've known better.
I've been playing games for over 20 years, and I don't feel that much has changed. There were some crap games back then, and there are some crap games now. I've purchased a lot of AAA games on day 1 recently and I've had no issues with any of them. There is no epidemic of unplayable games being released.
If we want to talk problems then talk about lack of innovation. The only thing improving in the past decade was graphics. Gameplay wise they were re-hashing the same things over and over again. With little to no difference. There is no innovation in gameplay, there is no innovation in physics, and there is no innovation in animation, no innovation in realism. New games offer nothing more than the old. I wish to see more realistic characters, and more realistic collisions, and actual simulation of human bodies based on muscles in games. And how about some realistic hair, and clothes finally? Why is graphics the only thing they seem to be trying to improve?
Except they don't. Maybe you should revise your choices if the games you're buying consistently suck.
I don't remember buying any games that would suck per se.
They weren't that great, but didn't suck.
And there were games that were great. I never thought that I'd play hundreds of hours with any game anymore.
No, my experience then and now is:
Buy game due to cool box art or cool Youtube video.
Game crashes after 5 to 30 minutes. 99% of them have some fatal flaw. It is the nature of software and I understand this. Doesn't mean that I'm happy though.
Scour PC magazines or the web to figure out how to make it run.
Send DXDiag and crash data to developers to help expedite a fix.
Read long patch notes that extend for pages in a magazine or pages on a website blog that list the known and fixed issues.
Get sad and cut the game off. Shelve it for 6 months to 3 years depending on how distraught I was that the game I just blew $60 on won't run.
Fire up any iconic console cornerstone game such as Mario and marvel that it always works right out of the box. Reminisce for awhile.
There are very few new games for PC that really cost $60 in the first place if you use key sites and Greenmangaming. In regards to most games not being very good, that has been true forever. There is just more marketing and hype behind a lot of games than there used to be.
I think I bought 4 "AAA" games at release this year and the most I paid for any of them was $47-48. I will probably end up spending more on a couple of them after DLC/premium (Dark Souls 3 and BF1) but I already have something like 200 hours in each of those games so that seems like money well spent.
last game i bought that Steam priced @ $60 ..i bought on Dlgamer.com (was far cry Primal ) snagged it the day the game shipped for only $35 ..came with all the pre order content too , and even despite the fact it used Uplay .. works perfect ..i will never pay $60 for a Ubisoft game just to say i have it on steam ..just so valve can just add DRM ..charge more ..and try to justify the price when, even a game has no multiplayer ..or MOD support
ya need to shop around when a game your interested in ....ships ...as there there are great deals out there if ya take the time to look
Funny thing is that kind of thing hasn't happened to me for years, and when it did it was with games that were far from new at the time. Nothing recently though.
Stuff happens and I don't mind companies having issues; I just don't want to pay for early access issues. Take 3DMark for example. It was working fine forever and then they updated the software and left out a key component. Being as I don't mind talking to developers, I posted that it was broken. Developer wanted DXDIAG and for me to try their fixes. I posted that I had tried their fixes and was still broken. They figured it out and because I had done a bunch of stuff to my registry trying to make it work, I reset Windows. Working great now.
New DX12 patch for The Division adds a ton of performance for my system. Performance wise it is a great addition to the game. But after 3 - 5 hours it causes a complete system hang. Thought it was just me, but some other guys on the forums here have the same issue. Sent in my report to UBISOFT. Hope they fix it.
Like I said I harbor no hate for developers and bugs. If everything has been great and peachy for you then that's awesome! I'm glad that everything works perfect on day one for you. I'm just not willing on day one to be a bug tester for $60. Been there done that since the 1970's.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen. But it seems to me that there is no epidemic and it doesn't happen more than a decade ago.
Yeah, this is a good point...I don't ever pay $60 for new titles anymore, there is ALWAYS a deal where you can get it for at least 20% off even as a pre-order.
I remember being in Sears department store 30 years ago begging my mom to buy me Astroids for Atari 2600 for $59. People think games have risen in cost but i don't think so.
No kidding I payed like 50.00 for Vigilante for the Sega master system that game sucked so bad on that system.
Also bought Spy Hunter for the NES for the same price I traded in in for Zelda or something.
Talk about throwing away Paper Route Money.
Back then Video Game rental places were all over the place so you could try out whatever.
Along with VHS tapes
Indeed. SNES games cost upward of $80. If I remember correctly, SM64 and PilotWings were $70 when they came out.
Cant forget the masterpiece that is "Hey you Pikachu!" I think that game was like $75-$80.
I think the pricing on those had far more to do with being a physical cartridge than anything else.
Yeah....I remember when Killer Instinct for the SNES came out. It was $80 dollars if I remember correctly.
What are these "months" you guys are talking about? Like i said before, you can get virtually any game for ~$45 at/near release.
For doom, https://thetracktor.com/detail/B00M3D8ISS/
Within a month $40
For Battlefield, http://camelcamelcamel.com/ELECTRON...eld-CIAB-PC/product/B01F9HMOBQ?context=browse
Within 2 weeks for $40
And these trackers don't even look at the grey area markets.
Indeed. I'd say $60 is only expected for a game from the most avid fans or people who have zero patience. Games very soon drop down to $40-45. Personally I wait for anywhere between $5-20, mainly because I'm so busy with work that it's usually months before I can play things properly - plus games I enjoy I give two playthroughs a few months apart. I still don't have time for AC Syndicate so why buy it now for $20 if it'll be cheaper by March, and maybe by then I'll have time to play it.
Here's my list of recent games I've paid full price for:
Witcher 3 & dlc's (money well spent)
Fallout 4 (was slightly disappointed)
Stellaris (not a $60 game but still paid full price)
Gta 5 (got my money's worth)
Deus ex (not worth it)
Star citizen (original backer $60 package, guess we will see about this one)
I've been playing games long enough to know to avoid the duds (most of them anyway). Avoid EA & Activision in until their games are in the bargain barrel.
It cost money to distribute games digitally and push out patches.
I remember spending $64 on Street Fighter for the Genesis when I was 10. $60 as an adult working full time is nothing.
Depends what kind of job you have. I doubt people making $16K a year on a full time job think $60 is an acceptable price for them to pay just for a game. In fact, I firmly believe that more and more people buy games between $20-40 these days instead of full price because there's a much greater majority of low-middle class people who don't make more than $30K a year these days.
I dunno, wife, kid, medical expenses, wear and tear on home, mortgage, HOA, vehicle needs (even if they are paid off), insurance, savings, food, bills just to name a few... I make a decent wage but the game had better be damned near perfect (day 1 patching what?) or something I really care about before I'll go for full release day price on it (yes I know you can get discounts from places).
An Adult working full time with no real obligations and disposable income to spare may not balk at the price in any way. If you have the cash to spend, do so and by all means enjoy! However some of us need to be a little more picky and careful so waiting 6 to 24 months for a title we want but can wait on is no big deal and we too shall enjoy! (just not yet)
Addendum: because of all the causes you mentioned, those like us don't necessarily have to wait 6-24 months. More like, by the time you have free time available to actually play the game you wanted, you realize 6, 12, 18... months have gone by. The discount at that point in time is a welcome side-benefit. I still haven't had time to purchase/play AC Syndicate. Hopefully by May? Who knows.
I find it sad that the price for a AAA title has held solid @ $60 for almost 2 decades and people are still bitching about price. Considering the amount of effort/resources to produce what people will accept as a AAA these days has gone up massively, the market demand has not matched that cost growth very well.
Simply put, when you are in a self desired race to the bottom for price..the quality will land up there too. When you expect otherwise...that is pretty much the definition of entitlement.
Made both salaries you mentioned and still bought $60 games. I guess I have twisted priorities in life.
If somebody is making $16k a year and wants to play that game...they will find the $60 (e.g. ~1 days work after taxes). But guess what...in no damn way is that person ENTITLED to a lower price game on launch because they make $16k a year...or any salary per year. A game is a "luxury" by all nearly all definitions. If it is important to you...you will find the money. If it is not important to you, you should be putting that money towards things that are important to you. But if you are buying a $60 game on $16k a year that isn't that important to you and you have other obligations that are...well, then i'm pretty sure I know why you make $16k/year.
Same. I lived on around $250 a week for a few years in my life and still managed to buy games at full price like Mass Effect 3 and Dark Souls.
True. It isn't much. A couple hours of work.
But, some games don't have that $60 value. It's like paying $20 for a McDonalds hamburger. $20 is nothing to a working adult. But, that burger is far from being worth $20. Hell, it's barely worth the $5 they do charge.
Cost vs. value are different things.
I can afford some things. I just don't see the value in them.
Most of the best selling NES games only hit ~2million, SNES ~4million (with Mario games being much much higher outliers); whereas Xbox 360 has them sitting ~10million, with many many 1 million + sellers. The market demand is much higher, and though the cost of games has gone up massively, the potential sales have as well.
$10 million game for 2 million sales ($120 mil) or a $50 million dollar game for 4 million sales ($240mil).
Once they sell enough copies to pay for development, you're paying for the sequel or other project's development, then all profit. So today that means ~1-2 million sales to break even, another 1-2 million sales to fund your next project. Plenty of games do that.
Then you have titles like Terraria that cost MUCH less to develop, but sold for only $10-20, sell many many copies. ~18 million copies sold now, lets guess an average of $10 each. How much do you think it cost them to make?
The market is HUGE now. HUGE. And with unreal / other multi-port engines, you can reach so many other people with miminal added dev cost. That's why we shouldn't be paying more than $45 these days.
You're assuming that the entire $60 retail price goes back to the developer and/or publisher. It doesn't. It's estimated that only 33-50% of a game's sale price goes back to the publisher, meaning $20-$30 on a $60 title. The rest is split between the retailer, distributor, and licensor.
Let's split the difference and say $25. The best selling video game on Xbox 360 was Halo 3 at 8.1 million worldwide. To not complicate things let's just take into account the 4.82 million sold in the US. That $120.5 million in sales. With an estimated budget of around $60 million including marketing that is just enough profit to fund a sequel with all things being equal.
How about Metal Gear Solid IV, the best selling title on PS3 with 4.33 million units worldwide. The actual estimated budget number was around $70 million, but we were never told what marketing was. It was rumored that the total budget could have been $100 million or more. Just simplifying things by using the USD, best case scenario with a rip of $30 back to the publisher Konami only made about $130 million. Is it any wonder why Kojima was kicked to the curb?
That's the problem... it's an industry: mass production of a streamlined product (*cough* Call Of Duty) to be mass consumed and made obsolete by next year's version. It's no longer (or has not been for a very long time) "by gamers, for gamers". Independent development is going to be the future of hardcore gaming. It used to be only mods (and boy were they good!), but nowadays with free engines (open source or otherwise) those mods are quickly becoming full-fledged games of their own that quite often rival AAA development backed by oodles and oodles of cash.
No wonder some AAA companies have been quite hostile towards modding or PC gaming. They're competition they can't control.
No, no, you may have misunderstood my post. I never meant anybody making less money is entitled to pay less on launch. What I meant was that, with a $16K yearly salary, many won't be able to justify that purchase, so will just wait until the game is cheaper months later. This would explain the greater amount of consumers buying cheaper these days as there's a lot more low middle class than there used to be decades ago.
This will give you peace mind https://www.cheapshark.com/ , http://cheapdigitaldownload.com/
$60 is out of league for me.
People buy cheap games because they are being cheap...PERIOD. You keep giving the human race too much credit.
Anyways, go to any low income group of people and, I would be dollars to donuts, they do have some sort of luxury. Whether or not they should do that is not important. What is important to note is that people will put resources to things they want often above what they need in attempt to make themselves feel better. So, what do they do when they don't have enough money for other things they "want", they bitch about how it is "too expensive" or "its unfair" or any other myriad of excuses. The fact is they made a choice on how to allocate their resources.
The only games I pay full price for without question are games that I know I am going to play a lot of, usually games in a series. The last game of note that I paid full price for was Forza Horizon 3, mostly because I want them to know that I have been waiting for this(and it did not disappoint for the most part). Other than that, I usually try to wait for the best deal possible. Sometimes it is only a couple of months, sometimes it may be a year or more. Each game is different, and has a different price point to where it becomes irresistible.