Most likely but that's why we shouldn't roll over and accept the $70 price. If NBA 2k21 does sell well and make more profits, then other developers will likely experiment as well. Thing is the 2K franchise isn't exactly known for smart consumers, and will likely buy these games regardless of price or quality.I haven't heard of any of publishers doing this, maybe they want to test the waters and then follow suit.
So any other games mentioned here? Or just nba2k, because it kind of stinks to high heaven of nba players demanding more for their likenesses. Sports player salaries seem to break records each year, you know the organization is going to want their piece of the pie.. oh yeah they are extra hungry this year
It's not as if $69.99 is totally unreasonable given constantly swelling game budgets, but NBA 2K21 seems like a very poor champion to bring us into that era. Sports games get recycled year after year, and since this one is on current gen also its not like they can claim they remade the game from the ground up for the new consoles.
It’s that attitude that leads to the price hikes though.Times have changed. Not even that long ago, the highest-end phone could cost $500 and that was considered expensive.
Movie tickets were less than $10. Hell, you could get a crazy graphics card for $400 and be a baller. I don't see how an extra $10 on a game is something to bunch up your panties.
Wait til you see that FS2020 is coming in three different packages priced at $59.99, $89.00, and $119.99. The extra money gets you more planes & detailed airports though. Flight simmers are accustomed to investing hundreds of dollars for 3rd party add-ons for a given flight sim platform already. A bit of apples & oranges as there's a lot more going on with a flight sim than just new player rosters for these sports games IMO, but still pertinent to game pricing.
We’ve had ‘next-gen’ on pc for years. The answer to your question: no.I guess you really have to see if you’re getting extra value for that money then. Most games will be cross platform at first. Are the improvements of the new console worth the money over last gen?
We’ve had ‘next-gen’ on pc for years. The answer to your question: no.
Actually, we haven't. Since this generation launched, developers have been aiming their games design to be playable on systems that basically are 8 Athlon 64s at 1.6 ghz matched with a AMD 7770 or 7850, capped with only 8GB of high latency memory and 60MB of HD transfer rate. Since that's where developments assets for art, physics, LODs, etc are aimed, and the PC gaming market pales in comparison to the console market, what we have gotten is the polished left overs of ancient tech. Since developers don't have a lot of encouragement to spec their engines up to proverbial Crysis levels, we haven't seen anything that absolutely drags a modern PC to its knees for years. Any wonder why SLI died. It wasn't needed. The only PC game that is exclusively PC that I know of off hand is Star Citizen. It has true 64bit locations, and requires at least an SSD to stream in textures.
That stunning Unreal PS5 demo? Hardware capable of that has existed on the PC side for 4 years now. Yet we only get to see it when the new consoles are announced because as a whole, it wasn't worth it for them to make it for PCs. Simple economics, and no amount of wishful thinking will change it.
That's why we need the next gen consoles to be as powerful as possible. Developers have already been extolling how they have 4X the CPU power in the PS5, which is at best a mid to upper midrange CPU in the PC world. The new console GPUs, being able to match at least a 5700XT or 2080, will allow developers to finally push our PCs harder because they have a financially viable reason to. And right now, the vast majority of gamers are not rocking a NVME SSD. Even those that are can't match the PS5's....for now.
Actually, thank god for consoles. Otherwise, developers would be aiming their games as the most popular platform in the world: Smart Phones.
Edit: Here's the video about Star Citizen.
I don't know man. Even if I go back to the 2010 tunnel shooter Metro 2033, it is still pretty heavy on even modern PC hardware, especially if you crank up the resolution and effects.
At 4K Ultra settings even the fastest GPU on the market today will only get you to just north of 60fps on modern titles.
I'd argue that the games of the last 5-10 years most certainly can challenge high end PC hardware.
This isn't the 90's. No one plays at 1024x768 anymore.
I disagree but completely understand where you're coming from. In regards to Metro, poor and unoptimized engine performance is hardly a mark of weak hardware. The 4A Engine is notoriously inefficient compared to Frostbyte, Unreal, id Tech, and others. Metro has been hamstrung by the engine since its inception. That's why, despite it running like a potato on PCs, they manage to port it quite well to both last and current gen consoles. When you have to optimize for the hardware, you can shake out a lot of the performance issues.
It's also not just about resolution. Fidelity is made of three things: Resolution, Frame Rate, and detail.... And the devil is in the details. Details include things like textures, lighting, draw distance, particles, polygon count, to name a few. You can run a PS1 game like Tenchu at 12K resolution at 1000 FPS all day long and it won't look as good as Ghost of Tsushima at 1080P at 30FPS.
The current consoles, even the XBOX-X, don't have enough CPU and GPU power to push enough triangles to put the details in that will separate the generations. As such developers didn't spend much time optimizing for detail levels that couldn't be processed by the base current consoles. Sure, they offer a toggle that doubles the smoke, increases the particles, and maybe a few additional lighting tricks. But they aren't spending nearly as much time there. As such, we aren't really making full use of our hardware, until the consoles catch up. A good example might be this: Current PCs can do physics calculations far faster than the current consoles. Why is it then that while we can add basic ray tracing and slightly better textures, we are still stuck with console level destructible environments. That book shelf may look great ray-traced, but when I shoot it with a missile it should be smoldering kindling. Another good example is the ground in most games. Play Battlefield 5 and you will notice that the bump mapping morphs into place causing a weird shimmering ground effect. Go prone and you can see that most small "rocks" are attached at the base because they're actually just a bump mapped into place. This is the same no matter what platform you play on, and what detail level you select. It's in place because despite the fact a modern PC GPU could easily produce the geometry necessary to create real 3d objects, developers were focused on the consoles that can't. Most PC players won't notice a bump mapped rock pile when they're dodging virtual bullets, but they will notice bad lighting. So they up the lighting, and ignore the ground.
Imagine if developers said this: We want to design Battlefield 5 to look so good it drops the 1080ti / R7-3700/ 16GB DDR-3200 / NVME SSD to just 30FPS, at 1080P. Think about what the draw distances, texture quality, physics, models, etc. It would be truly next gen looking game. That is what the new consoles will bring to the market. Developers are still going to aim for 30 to 60FPS at sub 4K resolution with the PS5 and XsX. We're getting a new baseline. In a year or so, we will have hardware that can run 2x to 3X the performance of the next-gen consoles. But for now, they will be what opens the doors to our PCs living up to their true potential.
An exception might be said for HFR gaming. Being able to play BF5, at a locked 120FPS at 1080P, vs about 30FPS at sub 1080 on a console, is an eye opening experience that you can easily say is next-gen and I will absolutely agree to that. No pun intended.
As for 1024x768.... VOODOO 2's SLI FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Edit: I need to bring it back to the original thread before I get accused of being a thread thief. LOL....so with everything I mentioned, except my wistful love of the Voodoo2, you're going to need more artists and programmers to really bring that next-gen look. So game prices are likely to rise to account for this.
Edit 2: Also want to say I love this discussion.
If you go back to the early days of gaming, games are significantly less today than they were then. Single floppy games were 50-60, as I recall, and some games like Time Zone were 100 bucks. If you adjust for inflation, a game like Ultima 1 would sell for roughly 160 dollars.I know what I'm not buying
To be fair, I never was going to buy it anyway though.
I can see both sides of it. Prices are going up, and that sucks.
On the flip side, games really havent gone up at the same rate of inflation. I found an old Electronics Boutique flyer from ~1990 a while back and adjusted for inflation, all the big PC game prices were in the $80-$120 range in 2020 dollars.
That said, things have changed since then. Back then games were smaller affairs, easier to develop. They also sold to many fewer customers. Boxed game distribution had many costs associated with it too, box, floppies/CD's manuals, distribution costs, brick and mortar retail taking their cut, etc.
Today with digital distribution a unit costs next to nothing to distribute, so practically all of the cost is in development and licensing.
Games are much bigger affairs, with much bigger budgets and huge development staff, but they are also sold to a MUCH MUCH larger audience, which means that the initial cost is spready over many more people.
With all of these variables I can't even start guessing how the economic model today compares to the past in order to make an assessment of what is fair.
I do know what I find to be good enough value to part with my money though. I expect 60-80 hours or more interesting single player story driven game play for $29.99 or less on sale, within 2-3 years of release. Otherwise I'm not buying, except for a few titles which strongly appeal to me.