I really do think the various companies are going to have to just bite the bullet and raise the base price of games.
Barring the N64 weirdness and the Squeenix tax, games cost $50 ever since the NES days, and didn't get a bump until the 360. Meanwhile the cost of making and marketing a game has gone through the roof. The few remaining AAA publishers that didn't go bust have pared back their release slates and DLC'd their games about as much as they possibly can.
I know for me, personally, if the prices go up I'll end up buying fewer games. I think what they need to do is consider how effective their advertising really is. Does it really help to create preorder incentives for multiple outlets? Does it really help to create them at all? Are TV commercials bringing in sales? If so, are they bringing in enough sales to warrant the cost of a one-month run on network TV?
With the amount of people consuming content online would it be more effective to reach out to sites like GameSpot and Giant Bomb for things like Giant Bomb's Quick Look EX feature where the devs come by and talk with the staff while they play a preview build of the game and share trailers and stuff on youtube?
I know there's a lot more to the value of the game than just the money to time entertained ratio, but I think even with a price hike, video games would still have one of the best time:money ratios out there. I don't think I'd buy fewer games if they went up to $70. There are always gonna be games I want on day one, and games I'm willing to wait on. If prices went up, I'd still get those day one games, but wait a little longer on the other games to balance it out.
I know they're not going anywhere. But I think a price hike on games would lead to a higher profit margin, which could help publishers become more comfortable taking an occasional risk. The biggest issue I have with AAA gaming as a consumer is how safe it all seems.
+1
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
I would fully oppose a price hike because the issue is not the $60 price point, it's the publisher mindset of bloating up projects with stupid budgets and then proclaiming doom when they don't sell 4-5 million copies every time. If publishers had budgets that could handle selling fewer games while still making a profit, then things wouldn't be so ridiculous with AAA releases.
It used to be that AAA releases were uncommon and most other stuff had middling budgets, but those lower-budget projects is where the AAA franchises came from. Since publishers refuse to do that anymore, everything is either a hit or a failure in their eyes.
The upside is that the independent market has picked up the slack there put out a lot of pretty great and unique titles. I buy far, far more of the lower-budget titles these days despite having more money to spend, simply because most AAA releases these days aren't offering anything I'm looking for; all of the big publishers are too busy try to buy shortcuts with stacks of money to develop the cheaper stuff that has all the character and neat development ideas that grow into major franchises.
Arcade games were absolutely, unquestionably, 100% designed to squeeze quarters out of first adults, then eventually teenagers, then eventually children, to the point that many had a thing inside you could twiddle to make them harder/give fewer lives per credit/etc. Pinball was the same, and just enough a "game of skill" that it didn't get hit by gambling laws.
Odds were, though, players didn't have the skills, like you say.
Funny that you say that because pinball machines were banned in New York (and other major cities in the US) from the early 1940s until 1976 when Roger Sharpe testified in April of that year that pinball machines were games of skill. He played two machines, one that he was familiar with and had brought to a Manhattan committee, and another that one of the committee member brought as he claimed Sharpe's original machine was modified to give Sharpe an advantage. While beating the hell out of the second machine, the committee member still claimed it was gambling and not skill so Sharpe called his next shot, did the shot, and turned over the law that banned Pinball Machines. So next time you go to an arcade or play any video games, thank Roger Sharpe for being the Pinball Wizard.
That's exactly what I was thinking of. Fun part is, that was a total hail mary on his part, and he wasn't even sure he could do it. It was just all he could think of.
Arcade games were absolutely, unquestionably, 100% designed to squeeze quarters out of first adults, then eventually teenagers, then eventually children, to the point that many had a thing inside you could twiddle to make them harder/give fewer lives per credit/etc. Pinball was the same, and just enough a "game of skill" that it didn't get hit by gambling laws.
Odds were, though, players didn't have the skills, like you say.
Funny that you say that because pinball machines were banned in New York (and other major cities in the US) from the early 1940s until 1976 when Roger Sharpe testified in April of that year that pinball machines were games of skill. He played two machines, one that he was familiar with and had brought to a Manhattan committee, and another that one of the committee member brought as he claimed Sharpe's original machine was modified to give Sharpe an advantage. While beating the hell out of the second machine, the committee member still claimed it was gambling and not skill so Sharpe called his next shot, did the shot, and turned over the law that banned Pinball Machines. So next time you go to an arcade or play any video games, thank Roger Sharpe for being the Pinball Wizard.
That's exactly what I was thinking of. Fun part is, that was a total hail mary on his part, and he wasn't even sure he could do it. It was just all he could think of.
Some folks around here are fans of Drunk History, I see. :P
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
Arcade games were absolutely, unquestionably, 100% designed to squeeze quarters out of first adults, then eventually teenagers, then eventually children, to the point that many had a thing inside you could twiddle to make them harder/give fewer lives per credit/etc. Pinball was the same, and just enough a "game of skill" that it didn't get hit by gambling laws.
Odds were, though, players didn't have the skills, like you say.
Funny that you say that because pinball machines were banned in New York (and other major cities in the US) from the early 1940s until 1976 when Roger Sharpe testified in April of that year that pinball machines were games of skill. He played two machines, one that he was familiar with and had brought to a Manhattan committee, and another that one of the committee member brought as he claimed Sharpe's original machine was modified to give Sharpe an advantage. While beating the hell out of the second machine, the committee member still claimed it was gambling and not skill so Sharpe called his next shot, did the shot, and turned over the law that banned Pinball Machines. So next time you go to an arcade or play any video games, thank Roger Sharpe for being the Pinball Wizard.
That's exactly what I was thinking of. Fun part is, that was a total hail mary on his part, and he wasn't even sure he could do it. It was just all he could think of.
Some folks around here are fans of Drunk History, I see. :P
I did see that but I also used this story as a research paper in high school so I knew it before then. But Drunk History did a fantastic job explaining it.
Arcade games were absolutely, unquestionably, 100% designed to squeeze quarters out of first adults, then eventually teenagers, then eventually children, to the point that many had a thing inside you could twiddle to make them harder/give fewer lives per credit/etc. Pinball was the same, and just enough a "game of skill" that it didn't get hit by gambling laws.
Odds were, though, players didn't have the skills, like you say.
Funny that you say that because pinball machines were banned in New York (and other major cities in the US) from the early 1940s until 1976 when Roger Sharpe testified in April of that year that pinball machines were games of skill. He played two machines, one that he was familiar with and had brought to a Manhattan committee, and another that one of the committee member brought as he claimed Sharpe's original machine was modified to give Sharpe an advantage. While beating the hell out of the second machine, the committee member still claimed it was gambling and not skill so Sharpe called his next shot, did the shot, and turned over the law that banned Pinball Machines. So next time you go to an arcade or play any video games, thank Roger Sharpe for being the Pinball Wizard.
That's exactly what I was thinking of. Fun part is, that was a total hail mary on his part, and he wasn't even sure he could do it. It was just all he could think of.
Some folks around here are fans of Drunk History, I see. :P
I... Just know a lot of nearly pointless trivia, actually. And end up in a lot of wiki holes.
At the moment, the total cost of all of the DLC is getting close to $200. It's something that some people considering the game take one look at and go "LOL NOPE!" But with that said, all of the DLC expands on the base game, and the never ending DLC for the game serves to fund continued development in the game. CK2 is a bigger, better game than it was on release, even for people who have not purchased any of the DLC.
I think Crusader Kings 2 is a great example of where they release DLC packs that make the game even better. Various features of their major DLC is always available in everyone's game, so even if the player can't play as the new cultures or religions, they can still interact with them and learn a little about them. Even base game CK2 is different than it was at launch thanks to these substantial gameplay improvements that have been made.
Pricing the cosmetic packs separately from the major DLC just means that the major DLC is sold at a lower price. If you feel like increasing your verisimilitude by ensuring that the ruler you're playing as has a portrait that more resembles the ethnic group they belong to, spend a couple dollars on it. If not, don't. Paradox has regular sales on their DLC and I've picked up pretty much all the portrait packs when they are 75% off because it's just that much neater to look around the map and have everyone look a bit different.
Oh hey, Guitar Hero Live has microtransactions because why not?
Jesus...
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
0
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
The Guitar Hero Live microtransactions seem pretty harmless. It's like $.15 to play a song you like, and you can earn the money you need to pick it in game. Or you can play the music available in an almost Pandora-like station. It's pretty much what I wanted from Rock Band before anyway.
Microtransactions in any $60 game are unacceptable. I used to feel like they were no big deal as well, but now they're popping up all over the place in "AAA" releases. I'm sure they're going to get worse too... it's kind of scary.
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
I feel shitty about having been marketed a thing as a platform and then finding out that it's really a closed sub-platform and that Harmonix (or whoever the fuck owns it now) has no way of tracking that I bought a ton on the 360 and would have no access to that library on the PS4.
That's not a platform. That's a shit-show full of lies.
No one was even thinking about next gen at the time they marketed RB as a platform
The fact that any of your DLC carries over to a new console is generous at worst. Your DLC still works just fine on the system you bought it for, and that's all they owed you
That said, I was both A) talking to Skullnumbers and talking about the fact that it's basically a game built on microtransactions
I feel shitty about having been marketed a thing as a platform and then finding out that it's really a closed sub-platform and that Harmonix (or whoever the fuck owns it now) has no way of tracking that I bought a ton on the 360 and would have no access to that library on the PS4.
That's not a platform. That's a shit-show full of lies.
The fact you couldn't play your 360 DLC on a PS3 didn't clue you in on the fact that it wasn't a console agnostic platform?
I get that. I'm just mad about it all over again any time Rock Band comes up in a conversation. The fact that I moved from 360 as my primary last gen to PS4 this time means that I'll be saving a ton because I have absolutely no desire to either a) buy an Xbox One or b) re-buy songs for a "platform" that I've already bought it one.
I get that. I'm just mad about it all over again any time Rock Band comes up in a conversation. The fact that I moved from 360 as my primary last gen to PS4 this time means that I'll be saving a ton because I have absolutely no desire to either a) buy an Xbox One or b) re-buy songs for a "platform" that I've already bought it one.
You never bought those songs for Rockband on a Sony console. No one ever even insinuated that.
I feel shitty about having been marketed a thing as a platform and then finding out that it's really a closed sub-platform and that Harmonix (or whoever the fuck owns it now) has no way of tracking that I bought a ton on the 360 and would have no access to that library on the PS4.
That's not a platform. That's a shit-show full of lies.
The fact you couldn't play your 360 DLC on a PS3 didn't clue you in on the fact that it wasn't a console agnostic platform?
It never occurred to me to try. I owned Rock Band stuff on 360. The point is, platform doesn't mean what they think it means. And I don't think I'm on an island as somebody who enjoyed Rock Band on 360 and then moved to PS4 as my primary console. I mean, it sounds like there's nothing they can do about it, and that sucks, but I also imagine I'm not the only customer they lost over having to tell people "oh, it's not a real platform, it's a baby platform stuck inside this other platform."
I get that. I'm just mad about it all over again any time Rock Band comes up in a conversation. The fact that I moved from 360 as my primary last gen to PS4 this time means that I'll be saving a ton because I have absolutely no desire to either a) buy an Xbox One or b) re-buy songs for a "platform" that I've already bought it one.
You never bought those songs for Rockband on a Sony console. No one ever even insinuated that.
They implied I'd never have to because I was buying them for the Rock Band platform. Rock Band songs were compatible with all games in the Rock Band platform. They had their own store that was separate from the XBL marketplace (or so it seemed to me) where my whole library was tracked. It looked and acted like Rock Band was tracking my purchases and knew what I'd purchased for their platform.
That's apparently just how it looked and not what it really was, and it continues to disappoint me.
I get that. I'm just mad about it all over again any time Rock Band comes up in a conversation. The fact that I moved from 360 as my primary last gen to PS4 this time means that I'll be saving a ton because I have absolutely no desire to either a) buy an Xbox One or b) re-buy songs for a "platform" that I've already bought it one.
You never bought those songs for Rockband on a Sony console. No one ever even insinuated that.
They implied I'd never have to because I was buying them for the Rock Band platform. Rock Band songs were compatible with all games in the Rock Band platform. They had their own store that was separate from the XBL marketplace (or so it seemed to me) where my whole library was tracked. It looked and acted like Rock Band was tracking my purchases and knew what I'd purchased for their platform.
That's apparently just how it looked and not what it really was, and it continues to disappoint me.
They never implied that. That was an assumption you made seemingly based on nothing.
Quite frankly it's amazing you can move your dlc forward on the same console family.
I get that. I'm just mad about it all over again any time Rock Band comes up in a conversation. The fact that I moved from 360 as my primary last gen to PS4 this time means that I'll be saving a ton because I have absolutely no desire to either a) buy an Xbox One or b) re-buy songs for a "platform" that I've already bought it one.
You never bought those songs for Rockband on a Sony console. No one ever even insinuated that.
They implied I'd never have to because I was buying them for the Rock Band platform. Rock Band songs were compatible with all games in the Rock Band platform. They had their own store that was separate from the XBL marketplace (or so it seemed to me) where my whole library was tracked. It looked and acted like Rock Band was tracking my purchases and knew what I'd purchased for their platform.
That's apparently just how it looked and not what it really was, and it continues to disappoint me.
They never implied that. That was an assumption you made.
It was an assumption that I made because of the language that they used.
It doesn't matter because knowing that wouldn't have swayed me to buy an XB1, but there is literally nothing else I can think of that works that way but was marketed as a platform.
Hey, this is very informative to me. I just always assumed people didn't blame others when they made purchases for things they apparently didn't take the time to understand.
This sounds insane to me, DLC is never cross-console, ever
Why not? Have we accepted that this is a thing that happens and we'll need to suck it up and deal with it?
Yes
Unless you want to deal with third party clients like Uplay and Origin for every single game you buy DLC for, and how often are you really playing the same game on two different consoles?
How did you think their store was separate from the Xbox marketplace
You were buying it on an app on the Xbox 360, or on Xbox.com
This sounds insane to me, DLC is never cross-console, ever
They had their own special app. Netflix had its own app and it it totally separate from Xbox. Xfinity used to have their own app and they were completely separate from Xbox.
I get that I'm wrong and that's not how it worked. My point is that they marketed it as a thing that was special, unique, non-standard. I read more into that than they intended or were capable of delivering. And that sucks.
I don't, however, regret the purchases. $2 per song was a good price for more fun out of a fun game. And I can still play those songs there. I have a huge library and 2 things in my house that can play Rock Band when the mood strikes me. I also don't feel like they were microtransactions. I wasn't buying energy to keep playing or double XP for 30 minutes or whatever. I can play Volcano whenever I want. It was just cheap DLC.
This sounds insane to me, DLC is never cross-console, ever
Why not? Have we accepted that this is a thing that happens and we'll need to suck it up and deal with it?
Even I'm on-board with this one. Fallout isn't a platform. I don't expect that if I pick up Fallout 3 on Steam that I'll have access to Point Lookout there.
This sounds insane to me, DLC is never cross-console, ever
Why not? Have we accepted that this is a thing that happens and we'll need to suck it up and deal with it?
Yes
Unless you want to deal with third party clients like Uplay and Origin for every single game you buy DLC for, and how often are you really playing the same game on two different consoles?
This generation included? Because everyone's remaking every game.
I don't have a problem with DLC in games. Never really thought of the song DLC as microtransactions, but I suppose it could technically be viewed that way. Thing is, you pay the $1.99 or whatever it is for a single song in RB and you get to keep it. In Guitar Hero, you pay the $2.50 for the privelage of playing 10 songs once.
Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
This sounds insane to me, DLC is never cross-console, ever
Why not? Have we accepted that this is a thing that happens and we'll need to suck it up and deal with it?
Yes
Unless you want to deal with third party clients like Uplay and Origin for every single game you buy DLC for, and how often are you really playing the same game on two different consoles?
This generation included? Because everyone's remaking every game.
I know that it's not a guarantee, but aren't they also coming out as "OMG THE BEST" versions that come with the DLC included like The Last Of Us did? Uncharted is a weird collection in that it removed whole modes, but that's not asking you to rebuy DLC (still crappy though).
Posts
Barring the N64 weirdness and the Squeenix tax, games cost $50 ever since the NES days, and didn't get a bump until the 360. Meanwhile the cost of making and marketing a game has gone through the roof. The few remaining AAA publishers that didn't go bust have pared back their release slates and DLC'd their games about as much as they possibly can.
With the amount of people consuming content online would it be more effective to reach out to sites like GameSpot and Giant Bomb for things like Giant Bomb's Quick Look EX feature where the devs come by and talk with the staff while they play a preview build of the game and share trailers and stuff on youtube?
That's great, and I hope it's true that it doesn't happen. Bungie has no choice if Activision forces the issue though, right?
The funny thing is that a price increase would totally not get rid of microtransactions or DLC and I think everyone here knows that deep down
It used to be that AAA releases were uncommon and most other stuff had middling budgets, but those lower-budget projects is where the AAA franchises came from. Since publishers refuse to do that anymore, everything is either a hit or a failure in their eyes.
The upside is that the independent market has picked up the slack there put out a lot of pretty great and unique titles. I buy far, far more of the lower-budget titles these days despite having more money to spend, simply because most AAA releases these days aren't offering anything I'm looking for; all of the big publishers are too busy try to buy shortcuts with stacks of money to develop the cheaper stuff that has all the character and neat development ideas that grow into major franchises.
That's exactly what I was thinking of. Fun part is, that was a total hail mary on his part, and he wasn't even sure he could do it. It was just all he could think of.
Some folks around here are fans of Drunk History, I see. :P
I did see that but I also used this story as a research paper in high school so I knew it before then. But Drunk History did a fantastic job explaining it.
I... Just know a lot of nearly pointless trivia, actually. And end up in a lot of wiki holes.
I think Crusader Kings 2 is a great example of where they release DLC packs that make the game even better. Various features of their major DLC is always available in everyone's game, so even if the player can't play as the new cultures or religions, they can still interact with them and learn a little about them. Even base game CK2 is different than it was at launch thanks to these substantial gameplay improvements that have been made.
Pricing the cosmetic packs separately from the major DLC just means that the major DLC is sold at a lower price. If you feel like increasing your verisimilitude by ensuring that the ruler you're playing as has a portrait that more resembles the ethnic group they belong to, spend a couple dollars on it. If not, don't. Paradox has regular sales on their DLC and I've picked up pretty much all the portrait packs when they are 75% off because it's just that much neater to look around the map and have everyone look a bit different.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Jesus...
I feel shitty about having been marketed a thing as a platform and then finding out that it's really a closed sub-platform and that Harmonix (or whoever the fuck owns it now) has no way of tracking that I bought a ton on the 360 and would have no access to that library on the PS4.
That's not a platform. That's a shit-show full of lies.
The fact that any of your DLC carries over to a new console is generous at worst. Your DLC still works just fine on the system you bought it for, and that's all they owed you
That said, I was both A) talking to Skullnumbers and
The fact you couldn't play your 360 DLC on a PS3 didn't clue you in on the fact that it wasn't a console agnostic platform?
You never bought those songs for Rockband on a Sony console. No one ever even insinuated that.
It never occurred to me to try. I owned Rock Band stuff on 360. The point is, platform doesn't mean what they think it means. And I don't think I'm on an island as somebody who enjoyed Rock Band on 360 and then moved to PS4 as my primary console. I mean, it sounds like there's nothing they can do about it, and that sucks, but I also imagine I'm not the only customer they lost over having to tell people "oh, it's not a real platform, it's a baby platform stuck inside this other platform."
They implied I'd never have to because I was buying them for the Rock Band platform. Rock Band songs were compatible with all games in the Rock Band platform. They had their own store that was separate from the XBL marketplace (or so it seemed to me) where my whole library was tracked. It looked and acted like Rock Band was tracking my purchases and knew what I'd purchased for their platform.
That's apparently just how it looked and not what it really was, and it continues to disappoint me.
They never implied that. That was an assumption you made seemingly based on nothing.
Quite frankly it's amazing you can move your dlc forward on the same console family.
How did you think their store was separate from the Xbox marketplace
You were buying it on an app on the Xbox 360, or on Xbox.com
This sounds insane to me, DLC is never cross-console, ever
It was an assumption that I made because of the language that they used.
It doesn't matter because knowing that wouldn't have swayed me to buy an XB1, but there is literally nothing else I can think of that works that way but was marketed as a platform.
Why not? Have we accepted that this is a thing that happens and we'll need to suck it up and deal with it?
Yes
Unless you want to deal with third party clients like Uplay and Origin for every single game you buy DLC for, and how often are you really playing the same game on two different consoles?
They had their own special app. Netflix had its own app and it it totally separate from Xbox. Xfinity used to have their own app and they were completely separate from Xbox.
I get that I'm wrong and that's not how it worked. My point is that they marketed it as a thing that was special, unique, non-standard. I read more into that than they intended or were capable of delivering. And that sucks.
I don't, however, regret the purchases. $2 per song was a good price for more fun out of a fun game. And I can still play those songs there. I have a huge library and 2 things in my house that can play Rock Band when the mood strikes me. I also don't feel like they were microtransactions. I wasn't buying energy to keep playing or double XP for 30 minutes or whatever. I can play Volcano whenever I want. It was just cheap DLC.
Yes? Is this a serious question?
You might as well ask why I can't play my Xbox One games in UnbreakableVow's PS4.
Even I'm on-board with this one. Fallout isn't a platform. I don't expect that if I pick up Fallout 3 on Steam that I'll have access to Point Lookout there.
This generation included? Because everyone's remaking every game.
I don't have a problem with DLC in games. Never really thought of the song DLC as microtransactions, but I suppose it could technically be viewed that way. Thing is, you pay the $1.99 or whatever it is for a single song in RB and you get to keep it. In Guitar Hero, you pay the $2.50 for the privelage of playing 10 songs once.
Yes that's exactly what I said by mentioning DLC. Don't be a goose.
So... I should be able to play my Xbox One Destiny DLC on Vow's PS4... that's a reasonable assumption, but being able to play the game isn't?
Are you fucking serious? You're going to call me a goose for that? Literally the harshest insult you can use on the boards for that.
I know that it's not a guarantee, but aren't they also coming out as "OMG THE BEST" versions that come with the DLC included like The Last Of Us did? Uncharted is a weird collection in that it removed whole modes, but that's not asking you to rebuy DLC (still crappy though).
I'm done talking to you if you're going to be a fucking goose about it.