As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Lootboxes, Microtransactions, and [Gambling in Gaming]

1525355575862

Posts

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    You could have a cooldown on buying them. If you return the contents of a random box or boxes within whatever return window is offered, you cannot buy any more for some additional reasonable window of time.

    So, I don't know, something like a 5 day or 7 day return window on FIFA packs but you can't purchase any more for 30 days if you take advantage of it.

  • GarthorGarthor Registered User regular
    edited June 2019
    Foefaller wrote: »
    Obviously not, but if you are demanding that lootbox should be returnable after opening, you aren't talking about making it too cumbersome to offer lootboxes, you are making it impossible to have lootboxes.

    And I'm all for getting rid of lootboxes entirely, but if you're trying to come up with a clever way to make it unfeasible but not sound like a ban so noone can call it a ban, forcing developers to allow returns after opening is going to be called a ban.

    So it is literally impossible for a lootbox to offer guaranteed value higher than the buy-in price, even given that the marginal cost for the goods within is literally zero dollars?

    Garthor on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    And no physical good to return and reprocess, so the return would only be whatever credit processing charge

  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    edited June 2019
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    I feel like allowing people to return digital goods is easier legislatively than legally defining what a loot box is and would have less side effects/work around

    And it would be demanded that the right to return is voided after the lootbox is open, and not doing so would sound ridiculous to your average legislature because "no returns when opened" is a legally enforceable standard for everything. To say lootboxes are somehow special just gets us into a different version of the "why not CCGs?" argument.

    Foefaller on
    steam_sig.png
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited June 2019
    I'm not against giving more rights to consumers in regards to returning purchased items, even if that goes against a standard average random legislatures ideas of fair

    Sure, we can return cards in an opened ccg pack, too. Sounds good to me!

    Burtletoy on
  • The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    A mandatory digital return system would completely kill lootboxes. Given the way most lootbox systems work, a refund system is virtually unfeasible, so companies would have little choice but to abandon the practice.

    ...This is a perfectly fine thing, by the way. Sure we're not technically making a "lootbox" illegal, but the system can't work in it. We're under no obligation to craft a law that allows companies to have their cake and eat it too. If mandatory refunds results in lootboxes being effectively impossible... well tough titties then.

    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    Doesn't make loot boxes illegal, just makes the *monetization* of loot box purchases less desirable for the companies.

    You can still grind for your free card packs or raid your bosses for drops, but discouraging companies from relying on selling a game of chance to kids to make money

  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    A mandatory digital return system would completely kill lootboxes. Given the way most lootbox systems work, a refund system is virtually unfeasible, so companies would have little choice but to abandon the practice.

    ...This is a perfectly fine thing, by the way. Sure we're not technically making a "lootbox" illegal, but the system can't work in it. We're under no obligation to craft a law that allows companies to have their cake and eat it too. If mandatory refunds results in lootboxes being effectively impossible... well tough titties then.

    I'm not saying it would be a terrible thing. It would be a wonderful thing.

    I'm just saying that if the point is to pretend that we aren't banning lootboxes, noone paying attention is going to buy it. So why not go with "let's ban Lootboxes?"

    steam_sig.png
  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    Foefaller wrote: »
    A mandatory digital return system would completely kill lootboxes. Given the way most lootbox systems work, a refund system is virtually unfeasible, so companies would have little choice but to abandon the practice.

    ...This is a perfectly fine thing, by the way. Sure we're not technically making a "lootbox" illegal, but the system can't work in it. We're under no obligation to craft a law that allows companies to have their cake and eat it too. If mandatory refunds results in lootboxes being effectively impossible... well tough titties then.

    I'm not saying it would be a terrible thing. It would be a wonderful thing.

    I'm just saying that if the point is to pretend that we aren't banning lootboxes, noone paying attention is going to buy it. So why not go with "let's ban Lootboxes?"

    If the choice was between a more robust return policy that affects both lootboxes as well as other digital purchases i.e. microtransactions versus just banning (or heavily regulating) lootboxes, I'd take the former.

    Or just do both. They're different things meant to tackle different exploitative practices afterall.

    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
  • The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    Foefaller wrote: »
    A mandatory digital return system would completely kill lootboxes. Given the way most lootbox systems work, a refund system is virtually unfeasible, so companies would have little choice but to abandon the practice.

    ...This is a perfectly fine thing, by the way. Sure we're not technically making a "lootbox" illegal, but the system can't work in it. We're under no obligation to craft a law that allows companies to have their cake and eat it too. If mandatory refunds results in lootboxes being effectively impossible... well tough titties then.

    I'm not saying it would be a terrible thing. It would be a wonderful thing.

    I'm just saying that if the point is to pretend that we aren't banning lootboxes, noone paying attention is going to buy it. So why not go with "let's ban Lootboxes?"

    Well it also has benefits beyond lootboxes. More robust digital rights is never a bad thing. It even has the benefit of bypassing the whole "But what about the Magic cards???" debate.

    It's also something that sounds more positive to the layperson. "We're giving you something" sounds better than "You can't do this anymore". People tend to reflexively get defensive when told the latter. So in a way it's an easier fight to win. And hey, it has the "unfortunate" side effect of making current lootbox systems unfeasible? Awww, well that's a shame I guess. :)

    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    Foefaller wrote: »
    A mandatory digital return system would completely kill lootboxes. Given the way most lootbox systems work, a refund system is virtually unfeasible, so companies would have little choice but to abandon the practice.

    ...This is a perfectly fine thing, by the way. Sure we're not technically making a "lootbox" illegal, but the system can't work in it. We're under no obligation to craft a law that allows companies to have their cake and eat it too. If mandatory refunds results in lootboxes being effectively impossible... well tough titties then.

    I'm not saying it would be a terrible thing. It would be a wonderful thing.

    I'm just saying that if the point is to pretend that we aren't banning lootboxes, noone paying attention is going to buy it. So why not go with "let's ban Lootboxes?"

    Well it also has benefits beyond lootboxes. More robust digital rights is never a bad thing. It even has the benefit of bypassing the whole "But what about the Magic cards???" debate.

    It's also something that sounds more positive to the layperson. "We're giving you something" sounds better than "You can't do this anymore". People tend to reflexively get defensive when told the latter. So in a way it's an easier fight to win. And hey, it has the "unfortunate" side effect of making current lootbox systems unfeasible? Awww, well that's a shame I guess. :)

    No it doesn't bypass the Magic debate. As awesome as it would be, no business in the US that I'm aware of currently has any legal obligation to give you any sort of a refund if you bring the item back within X period with the receipt no exceptions. They probably have a refund policy that they have to follow or get into hot water, but that's set by the company on the basis of good business, not the law. Heck, I'm pretty sure anything that has you sign a sales contract has fine print that says you *can't* demand a refund for anything that isn't covered by any warranty.

    I work at a college bookstore. We deal with shrinkwrap textbooks with access cards or that are loose-leafs all the time. Nearly all of them have a "No return if unwrapped" sticker on them, and once that shrinkwrap comes off I don't have to take back that book for a refund at all, even if you did it right in front of me and can see you didn't remove or damage anything in it. That isn't to say I wouldn't, because it's good business to be accommodating to customers, up to a degree (and frankly half the instructors don't even use the things in there that made the publisher decide to shrinkwrap it in the first place, so it isn't like we'll never be able to resell it) but your only recourse if I refuse and you fail to sway me is to go above my head. Same goes if you try to bring it back unopened after the time we allow for refunds, which might be less than a week depending on when in the semester you bought it and the day your class started.

    If you want to have a mandatory refund period for digital purchases, you are going to end up having to explain why people need that protection when they don't have it as a legal right with AFAIK anything else. And if you are going to extend it to lootboxes *after* the purchaser has seen they got, you're going to get questions of why that should apply when we don't do it for other things that are random like CCG booster packs for things like Magic.

    steam_sig.png
  • FANTOMASFANTOMAS Flan ArgentavisRegistered User regular
    Return policy for lootboxes wouldnt kill lootboxes, these are not physical crates that have mailing costs and a production value per unit, returned goods wont clog warehouses and ANY lootbox not returned is profit.

    Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    Here in Norway, you do not have a legally mandated right to return unopened merchandise to a physical store. (Although most businesses allow you to.)

    But you do have a legal right to 30 days no questions asked returning any good purchased over the phone or over the internet, as long as it is not used.

    Unfortunately, this only extends to stuff bought from a Norwegian store (or one that operates out of Norway). So not Amazon (nearest are in Germany and the UK), and I'm unsure about digital goods.

    Applying such a law to lootboxes can't hurt. But, as has been asked, what about opened lootboxes?

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
  • discriderdiscrider Registered User regular
    I wouldn't mind a legislated cool-down period between the purchase of funny-money and opening a lootbox, during which a refund should be easily obtainable.

  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    If we could ban selling ingame currency, premium or otherwise, it would go long way to curbing lootboxes.
    When people have to pay actual money, instead of whatever funbucks the devs always sell, the prize will be more apparent.
    Also, no more of the buy more for a discount funbucks sales.

  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    Here in Norway, you do not have a legally mandated right to return unopened merchandise to a physical store. (Although most businesses allow you to.)

    But you do have a legal right to 30 days no questions asked returning any good purchased over the phone or over the internet, as long as it is not used.

    Unfortunately, this only extends to stuff bought from a Norwegian store (or one that operates out of Norway). So not Amazon (nearest are in Germany and the UK), and I'm unsure about digital goods.

    Applying such a law to lootboxes can't hurt. But, as has been asked, what about opened lootboxes?

    There aren't many lootbox-enabled games where there is a distinction between 'purchased' and 'opened'. Generally you're just exchanging currency (real or in-game) for a fistful of random virtual goods.

    If games had to allow for the return of purchased virtual goods it would force companies currently relying on simulated scarcity to directly sell premium virtual goods at whatever price they could get for them and make lootbox contents, if they still sold them at all, all equally valuable such that people are unlikely to want to return them if they bought them in the first place. Would probably crater profits for most lootbox-driven games when it becomes evident in the UI that you're paying $100 for a skin, rather than paying $1 to pull the lootbox lever 100 times to get it.

    PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    You could have a cooldown on buying them. If you return the contents of a random box or boxes within whatever return window is offered, you cannot buy any more for some additional reasonable window of time.

    So, I don't know, something like a 5 day or 7 day return window on FIFA packs but you can't purchase any more for 30 days if you take advantage of it.

    Or they could set it up so that once you return a lootbox, the next lootbox you open will be exactly the same as the one you returned.

  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Between lootboxes and cryptocurrency I'm warming to the idea of why on earth do we need funbux in any form? Maybe we should be pushing for more legal tender only in online exchanges?

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Between lootboxes and cryptocurrency I'm warming to the idea of why on earth do we need funbux in any form? Maybe we should be pushing for more legal tender only in online exchanges?

    They're all natural results of economic disparity.

  • FANTOMASFANTOMAS Flan ArgentavisRegistered User regular
    jothki wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    You could have a cooldown on buying them. If you return the contents of a random box or boxes within whatever return window is offered, you cannot buy any more for some additional reasonable window of time.

    So, I don't know, something like a 5 day or 7 day return window on FIFA packs but you can't purchase any more for 30 days if you take advantage of it.

    Or they could set it up so that once you return a lootbox, the next lootbox you open will be exactly the same as the one you returned.

    Put that idea in your resume, EA will hire you in a hearbeat

    Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
  • yossarian_livesyossarian_lives Registered User regular
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7S-DGTBZU14
    This video sums up my feeling towards the industry pretty well. Fuck these companies!

    "I see everything twice!"


  • Romantic UndeadRomantic Undead Registered User regular
    I especially appreciate the part of that video where Jim puts to bed that ridiculous argument of "how else are the game developers gonna get paid? Making games is expensive!"

    Fuck. That. Argument.

    Games getting more expensive to make? Show your work. And if it's true, then adjust the price up front, the market will adjust. Don't fucking exploit your customers.

    3DS FC: 1547-5210-6531
  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    Yeah, the tools for making games are infinitely improved over what they were 15-20 years ago and the amount of expertise out there is massively increased as well. If games are too expensive to make, it's only because publishers are spending too much to make them. Something like Subnautica was developed by a tiny little team of devs and was a hit, there's no reason whatsoever for every franchise ever to have a 9-figure budget with the expectation of 10-figure returns. It's the industry that's the problem, not the development costs.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited July 2019
    If making games is so expensive, why aren't the people making the games being fairly compensated?

    DarkPrimus on
  • HerrCronHerrCron It that wickedly supports taxation Registered User regular
    edited July 2019
    Games getting more expensive to make? Show your work.

    That's fairly straight forward.
    Here is the full list of credits from Call Of Duty, released 2003, and the developer. Infinity Ward, had 23 people work on the project at some capacity
    Here is the full list of credits from Call of Duty: Black Ops IIII, released 2018, Treyarch, had 544 people work on the project at some capacity, and that's not including Raven Software who co-deved on the project and a crowd called Beenox, who worked on the windows version.

    Seems cut and dry to me.

    HerrCron on
    sig.gif
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited July 2019
    Except the big names are throwing around like 9 figures numbers for development, "Summer Blockbuster Budget plus marketing" style numbers.

    All while the general consensus seems to be 'working in the game industry is long hours for pay that ranges from 'meh' to 'wtf?' for almost everyone except the higher ups', with utterly crushing 'crunch time' seeming to extend further and further from release.

    Thus, I have a hard time believing that those extra 500'ish staff are contributing to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 having an alleged $200,000,000 budget (I'm aware I'm conflating MW1 and MW2 here, it's late and for the sake of brevity I'm assuming a similar'ish sized team worked on MW2, though a solid half decade happened between those two releases).

    Whether or not the marketing budget isn't included (it's often skipped in major movie releases, and can be as big as the development budget), that's in an era that has seen a big move from physical distribution to digital. Oh sure, many games end up on store shelves anyways (or at least, a code to plug into Steam or Origin or whatever in a box), but perhaps millions of copies just end up as bits floating in the aether, so it's not like that's as big an issue anymore.

    This also ties to choices. Many games choose not to use existing frameworks and engines, or take an existing one but customize the ever loving fuck out of it. In articles talking about it, Anthem went through this, and then there's the infamous Duke Nukem Forever that allegedly changed directions and full on engines on a regular enough basis. Not every game needs to trim back to a dozen guys/gals working in a start up office, but are we really getting 10, 50, 100+ times the game out of these things? Hell, Call of Duty is an awful example; I stopped buying the stupid things when I snagged MW1 & 2 and beat each of their single player campaigns in an afternoon apiece. On a Steam sale they were still like $20 despite having been out for years, and despite an assumption that the next game in chronological order will be finished in a similar time frame, this 9 year old game (BlOps1) is still over $20 Canadian on a half off sale (despite having 2 direct successors).

    I'm sure it's expensive. However, I suspect at least some of these expenses are self inflicted. Hell, some times it's even a bragging point, at least by the tone of some of these articles. And maybe some of them turn out to be the engrossing experience that warrants an Avengers level budget and a small town's worth of employees.

    That still doesn't justify predatory microtransaction and gambling mechanics.

    If Modern Warfare 7: Terrorist Fucker costs a gagillion dollars to make, well then bump the price up, scale it back (to a single player campaign I can beat over a savoured ham sandwich), or admit that it's a purely multiplayer experience and see if people still buy in, without the battle pass and lootboxes and 'red dot scope' and other bullshit.

    Edit: hah. With all of the DLC, map packs, and whatnot, a HALF OFF, the CoD Franchise Collection costs over $700 Canadian funbucks (so like, $500'ish US?), and that's accounting for my already owning 2 or 3 of the things on the list. CoD WWII + Season Pass is nearly a hundred alone (again, at half off the base game and a generous 20% off the season pass, which is another element we should aim ire at)

    Forar on
    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • HerrCronHerrCron It that wickedly supports taxation Registered User regular
    People seem to be sceptical that games are getting more expensive to make, well, there it is in black and white.
    Development teams are ridiculously big compared to fifteen years ago, and even thought they're not getting paid enough, they still gotta get paid.

    How people feel about what they produce isn't really relevant.

    sig.gif
  • darkmayodarkmayo Registered User regular
    HerrCron wrote: »
    People seem to be sceptical that games are getting more expensive to make, well, there it is in black and white.
    Development teams are ridiculously big compared to fifteen years ago, and even thought they're not getting paid enough, they still gotta get paid.

    How people feel about what they produce isn't really relevant.

    Do the AAA dev teams need to be this big? We see great games getting produced with far smaller teams and budgets.

    Switch SW-6182-1526-0041
  • MadicanMadican No face Registered User regular
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7S-DGTBZU14
    This video sums up my feeling towards the industry pretty well. Fuck these companies!

    Watching this video was very helpful, to the point I pushed back my bedtime a bit to see it through.

    Some might already be aware that I play these mobile gacha games. In recent times I even got a handle on my spending in them, so yay for me right? Well, not really.

    The video made me realize that even if I have vastly curtailed the money I put into those games, and never in an ill frame of mind anymore, I am still wasting a very valuable resource: time. Hours upon hours spent playing once of three mobile games whenever I'm sitting down with my phone nearby. They have indeed become what I consider as my hobbies, to the detriment of the things I actually want to be my hobbies such as writing or playing one of the many real video games in my backlog.

    A new event in Fate Grand Order? Yeah I'll spend a week or so grinding out currency to buy things from the event shop while I grab a new character that will then require more resources if I want to use them. I want to progress in Granblue Fantasy? I'd best spend a couple hours grinding out monotonous raids for a slight chance at an upgrade weapon. I want to make my units stronger in Epic 7? Better get grinding not only runes and EXP but also gear and fodder units numbering several hundred overall just to promote one singular character to 6* while stamina is an extremely limited resource.

    I'm not doing all three at once, the time can be split a number of ways, but nevertheless I am putting lots of hours into more mobile bullshit when I could be using them for other things. Every hour I'm doing something menial for a minor upgrade is another hour where I'm not playing an actual game. And really? That needs to stop. Especially since I sank all that time in because the goal was recognition and socialization with others playing the game, not really my own fun.

  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    HerrCron wrote: »
    People seem to be sceptical that games are getting more expensive to make, well, there it is in black and white.
    Development teams are ridiculously big compared to fifteen years ago, and even thought they're not getting paid enough, they still gotta get paid.

    How people feel about what they produce isn't really relevant.

    The skepticism is less that the game cost more to make and mostly that publishers are forcing games to cost more to make. Does it really seem like CODBLOPS 4, which is multiplayer-only, needed some twenty times the staff size of the first CoD? Hell. Fucking. No. The franchise formula has been very similar for several installments, and there's absolutely no reason for such massive budget and staff bloat except to very, very inefficiently churn out a new entry quickly. So the costs are going up because the publishers have to decided to turn the costs way up, all in pursuit of insane profits instead of merely acceptable profits.

    Nobody believes that these budgets have to be this way to get good games, and definitely nobody should believe publishers whining about profits just because they say so. The industry has made this situation for itself. If a company can't make a profit without predatory game mechanics, then they shouldn't be making that game. Period. A 500-person team for a game that only has multiplayer, and not even an ambitious multiplayer with a lot of features unseen in other games, is just fucking insane.

  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    HerrCron wrote: »
    People seem to be sceptical that games are getting more expensive to make, well, there it is in black and white.
    Development teams are ridiculously big compared to fifteen years ago, and even thought they're not getting paid enough, they still gotta get paid.

    How people feel about what they produce isn't really relevant.

    The skepticism is less that the game cost more to make and mostly that publishers are forcing games to cost more to make. Does it really seem like CODBLOPS 4, which is multiplayer-only, needed some twenty times the staff size of the first CoD? Hell. Fucking. No. The franchise formula has been very similar for several installments, and there's absolutely no reason for such massive budget and staff bloat except to very, very inefficiently churn out a new entry quickly. So the costs are going up because the publishers have to decided to turn the costs way up, all in pursuit of insane profits instead of merely acceptable profits.

    Nobody believes that these budgets have to be this way to get good games, and definitely nobody should believe publishers whining about profits just because they say so. The industry has made this situation for itself. If a company can't make a profit without predatory game mechanics, then they shouldn't be making that game. Period. A 500-person team for a game that only has multiplayer, and not even an ambitious multiplayer with a lot of features unseen in other games, is just fucking insane.

    I don't disagree

    But HerrCron wasn't addressing the point of whether or not games need to or should cost more.

    They were addressing the assertion that they don't cost more.

    Is it entirely unnecessary? Sure, I can get behind that argument. I think there are many AAA games that didn't actually need hundreds of people working on them getting paid shit for the hours they actually ended up working.

    I do think there's a possibility that with a large team it's possible to push the boundaries of what a game can be but I'd definitely agree that virtually none of the games that have been made with giant budgets and teams have really done that.

  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    Let's take, for example, GTA 5.
    Big game, expensive to make, sold like it came with a bag of cocaine.
    Did it need to sell lootboxes to be profitable? I don't think so.
    Sure the GTA online did sell cash, and cars, and virtual apartments and who knows what they are selling by now, but that was mostly just to make even more money, while using mostly pre existing assets at first and making the game grindy enough to encourage people to buy money.

    There is room for huge budge games making crazy money even without lootboxes.
    You just can't have every game being a huge budget game making crazy money.
    But instead of scaling back and making medim budget games for decent money, publishers instead of double down and slam lootboxes on everything trying to make all the money.

    Also, games are not expensive to make (to a point where lootboxes are must have to be profitable), publishers just choose to go for expensive games demanding huge numbers, it's a matter of choice, not necessity, that makes game development cost so much.

  • The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    An enormous reason why game development is so "expensive" is because the fucking executives are grossly overpaid.

    If games are legitimately so expensive, how about taking those record profits they're constantly having and dumping it back into development, instead of just padding already already over inflated wallets?

    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited July 2019
    Something to consider on the 500+ person dev teams: size isn't just inflated by more people at once. Turnover has increased by an immense margin between mid-cycle layoffs joining the traditional post-release layoffs, burnout (the industry has adopted military terminology to quantify workers they literally work into the hospital), the ever larger surge of temps brought in for crunch because release dates are set when the game is two pages of story board locked in a drawer, and crediting code vendors who may be paid as little as a few dollars for a trivial but of work.

    Cost of development is not a 1:1 relationship to fair market value. All other factors held constant, distribution is the other side of that coin. Profits from sales alone track upwards over the industry as a whole.

    Hevach on
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    darkmayo wrote: »
    HerrCron wrote: »
    People seem to be sceptical that games are getting more expensive to make, well, there it is in black and white.
    Development teams are ridiculously big compared to fifteen years ago, and even thought they're not getting paid enough, they still gotta get paid.

    How people feel about what they produce isn't really relevant.

    Do the AAA dev teams need to be this big? We see great games getting produced with far smaller teams and budgets.

    Do they need to be? No.

    Why are they? It's a mix of support staff (testers/qa/historical accuracy teams/etc) and people who manage the online/lootbox nonsense for it.

    There's no reason you couldn't make a call of duty with a team of 10 in 2 years in 2019 either, it just means you won't be able to use treyarch's special quake engine and probably be stuck with unreal.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    Hevach wrote: »
    Something to consider on the 500+ person dev teams: size isn't just inflated by more people at once. Turnover has increased by an immense margin between mid-cycle layoffs joining the traditional post-release layoffs, burnout (the industry has adopted military terminology to quantify workers they literally work into the hospital), the ever larger surge of temps brought in for crunch because release dates are set when the game is two pages of story board locked in a drawer, and crediting code vendors who may be paid as little as a few dollars for a trivial but of work.

    Cost of development is not a 1:1 relationship to fair market value. All other factors held constant, distribution is the other side of that coin. Profits from sales alone track upwards over the industry as a whole.

    not to mention churn and burn eats up operating expenses because you no longer have on staff experts, so there's a learning curve for new staff to enter the fold

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    HerrCron wrote: »
    People seem to be sceptical that games are getting more expensive to make, well, there it is in black and white.
    Development teams are ridiculously big compared to fifteen years ago, and even thought they're not getting paid enough, they still gotta get paid.

    How people feel about what they produce isn't really relevant.

    The skepticism is less that the game cost more to make and mostly that publishers are forcing games to cost more to make. Does it really seem like CODBLOPS 4, which is multiplayer-only, needed some twenty times the staff size of the first CoD? Hell. Fucking. No. The franchise formula has been very similar for several installments, and there's absolutely no reason for such massive budget and staff bloat except to very, very inefficiently churn out a new entry quickly. So the costs are going up because the publishers have to decided to turn the costs way up, all in pursuit of insane profits instead of merely acceptable profits.

    Nobody believes that these budgets have to be this way to get good games, and definitely nobody should believe publishers whining about profits just because they say so. The industry has made this situation for itself. If a company can't make a profit without predatory game mechanics, then they shouldn't be making that game. Period. A 500-person team for a game that only has multiplayer, and not even an ambitious multiplayer with a lot of features unseen in other games, is just fucking insane.

    They have to be this high to make photo realistic games that can compete with all the other photo realistic games. Consumer expectations of ever more ridiculous graphical fidelity is a huge factor. Extra Credits did a really good video on AAA budgets.

    But the belief is that higher sticker prices will be rejected by consumers so that drives a need to find ways to make money beyond the initial purchase price.

    While we should end lootboxes and other exploitative features we should be aware that this will not make games cheaper and it could cause a collapse if other ways to get more money out of games can't compensate.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    edited July 2019
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    HerrCron wrote: »
    People seem to be sceptical that games are getting more expensive to make, well, there it is in black and white.
    Development teams are ridiculously big compared to fifteen years ago, and even thought they're not getting paid enough, they still gotta get paid.

    How people feel about what they produce isn't really relevant.

    The skepticism is less that the game cost more to make and mostly that publishers are forcing games to cost more to make. Does it really seem like CODBLOPS 4, which is multiplayer-only, needed some twenty times the staff size of the first CoD? Hell. Fucking. No. The franchise formula has been very similar for several installments, and there's absolutely no reason for such massive budget and staff bloat except to very, very inefficiently churn out a new entry quickly. So the costs are going up because the publishers have to decided to turn the costs way up, all in pursuit of insane profits instead of merely acceptable profits.

    Nobody believes that these budgets have to be this way to get good games, and definitely nobody should believe publishers whining about profits just because they say so. The industry has made this situation for itself. If a company can't make a profit without predatory game mechanics, then they shouldn't be making that game. Period. A 500-person team for a game that only has multiplayer, and not even an ambitious multiplayer with a lot of features unseen in other games, is just fucking insane.

    They have to be this high to make photo realistic games that can compete with all the other photo realistic games. Consumer expectations of ever more ridiculous graphical fidelity is a huge factor. Extra Credits did a really good video on AAA budgets.

    But the belief is that higher sticker prices will be rejected by consumers so that drives a need to find ways to make money beyond the initial purchase price.

    While we should end lootboxes and other exploitative features we should be aware that this will not make games cheaper and it could cause a collapse*** if other ways to get more money out of games can't compensate.

    Yeah you gonna need to asterisk the shit out of "collapse", considering we have platforms, distribution systems, and an eager market ready and willing to purchase games at all times. This is not 1985.

    A collapse of the sweatshop AAA bullshit, maybe, but there's a ton of indie devs and smaller studios who wouldn't blink twice if Activision and EA collapsed under their own lumbering, slovenly weight.

    jungleroomx on
  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    I personally can't think of a game I bought in at least the last 5 years where I got it because the graphics were the shiniest. The big fad game right now is, what, Fortnite? Which is anything but photorealistic graphics. Overwatch was a big hit and, again, no photorealistic graphics. Something around half of the current global top sellers on Steam are not games with photorealistic graphics. Games have hit a point where the average player is going to have a tough time picking out any actual visual improvements game to game for something like the Call of Duty franchise, but they definitely kick up a ruckus about things like balance and unlockables.

    As far as causing a collapse, the market that will collapse will be the mega-budget games, not the games market in general. Any company currently making a profit without lootbox shit and by having reasonable profit expectations will be fine.

    The big lesson here seems to be "stop spending so much fucking money to make video games", not that they should cost more or be propped up by something like lootboxing.

  • jungleroomxjungleroomx It's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovels Registered User regular
    edited July 2019
    I personally can't think of a game I bought in at least the last 5 years where I got it because the graphics were the shiniest. The big fad game right now is, what, Fortnite? Which is anything but photorealistic graphics. Overwatch was a big hit and, again, no photorealistic graphics. Something around half of the current global top sellers on Steam are not games with photorealistic graphics. Games have hit a point where the average player is going to have a tough time picking out any actual visual improvements game to game for something like the Call of Duty franchise, but they definitely kick up a ruckus about things like balance and unlockables.

    As far as causing a collapse, the market that will collapse will be the mega-budget games, not the games market in general. Any company currently making a profit without lootbox shit and by having reasonable profit expectations will be fine.

    The big lesson here seems to be "stop spending so much fucking money to make video games", not that they should cost more or be propped up by something like lootboxing.

    Yeah.

    Hand-wringing that regulating loot boxes will destroy the entire industry just feels incredibly alarmist.

    Just to really drive the point home, id Software employs 200 people total. That's less than half of the people who worked on CODBLOPS3. Which means there's probably 100-150 people working on Doom Eternal, a game with gorgeous visuals and tons of content, but not really any of the modern lootbox and grind trappings that we find in everything.

    That tells me a lot.

    jungleroomx on
Sign In or Register to comment.