Sticking it to the greedy publishers.

[VincentHanna]

Graphical fidelity improved due to more modern consoles, therefore higher quality assets required, therefore more team members required and a the video game market growing no doubt mean rising wages in the industry for the top coders, artists etc.

And yet, Gears of War 4 isn't much different to Gears of War 1 - In terms of the gameplay.

Pretty sure GOW4 had loot boxes as well.

 

[vintage-x]

Graphical fidelity improved due to more modern consoles, therefore higher quality assets required, therefore more team members required and a the video game market growing no doubt mean rising wages in the industry for the top coders, artists etc.

And yet, Gears of War 4 isn't much different to Gears of War 1 - In terms of the gameplay.

Pretty sure GOW4 had loot boxes as well.

but would it have sold less if it didn't cost 100 million + to make?

that's a genuine question by the way.

 

[Kreeeee]

but would it have sold less if it didn't cost 100 million + to make?

that's a genuine question by the way.

This is the problem I have with people bleating on about the rising costs of games.

If no one bought any form of micro-transactions and the sale was limited to today's price of an average game then the cost of development would decrease to suit the market demands.

The cost of development is flexible, and will be relative to the potential profits. Sure we may get a game at 80% of the potential quality if only 20% the budget is used (80/20 principle), but that would be much healthier for the industry and for consumers I reckon.

 

[House]

I'm not the gamer I once was, but I was shocked at the weekend when my son wanted to spend his pocket money on forza "coins"? so he could buy a new car

is this what modern gaming has become? I thought £40 for the game was expensive enough

Micro transactions aren't in Forza 7 yet so is it an older game? if it is an older game tell him to play the bleeding game and earn what he wants! if its not an older game hes spinning you a line.

 

[mid_gen]

This is the problem I have with people bleating on about the rising costs of games.

If no one bought any form of micro-transactions and the sale was limited to today's price of an average game then the cost of development would decrease to suit the market demands.

The cost of development is flexible, and will be relative to the potential profits. Sure we may get a game at 80% of the potential quality if only 20% the budget is used (80/20 principle), but that would be much healthier for the industry and for consumers I reckon.

Devil's advocate :

Would you rather have AAA games pushing the limits of the latest hardware with microtransactions

OR

Have AAA games that artificially rein in their vision to meet the constrained budget requirements that come with no microtransactions?

I think the reality is that most people would go for option 1, as long as they microtransactions are done right.

 

[TallPaul1878]

To suggest that game studios need micro-transactions to "push the boundaries" of modern AAA games is a fallacy. Modern games aren't pushing the boundaries.

Shadow Of War, for example, is littered with busy work and padding. The loot boxes exist solely to remove the need for that busy work, particularly at the end game.

I think gamers have fallen into this mindset of £50 for a game should equate to about 50 hours of gameplay. Everyone wants to turbo their way through a game and then complain that the campaign only took 12 hours so it represents bad value for money.

But if that game has a compelling storyline and encourages multiple play throughs with a different character (mage, warrior, rogue, etc) then surely that game has lived up to the £/hr value that people seem to attribute to a game.

Micro-transactions aren't there to assist publishers with additional revenue to create better games. They are there to make additional revenue so that said publishers can have a mega pay day. That's how capitalism and the profit motive works.

In fact I'd put my money where my mouth is and bet that if micro-transactions were banned from games and stronger labour laws were enacted to protect game developers from the miserable conditions in dev studios that we would get BETTER games all round. I imagine games would take longer to make but would be of overall higher quality with less year to year iterations of the same games.

In the short term perhaps studios would have to adjust to the new conditions and we might see some shorter but high quality games released at various price points, but those Devs and publishers that get it right would grow and reap the rewards.

 

[TallPaul1878]

but would it have sold less if it didn't cost 100 million + to make?

that's a genuine question by the way.

Rocket League cost $1 million to make and roughly about the same in platform royalty costs. So let's say $2 million tops to develop yet as of June 2016 it has made over $100 million in sales.

I think it proves that if you had a product with compelling gameplay that you will be on to a winner regardless of it's development costs or lack of.

People want to play good games, not expensive games. The likes of Minecraft, Rocket League, etc show that development cost is not a precursor for success.

 

[mid_gen]

Rocket League, great example of why developers put microtransactions in their games! It makes loads of money.

Just because you can have successful simple games doesn't mean the demand for big budget AAA titles isn't there, and that those budgets aren't growing.

 

[Kreeeee]

Devil's advocate :

Would you rather have AAA games pushing the limits of the latest hardware with microtransactions

OR

Have AAA games that artificially rein in their vision to meet the constrained budget requirements that come with no microtransactions?

I think the reality is that most people would go for option 1, as long as they microtransactions are done right.

The second. But then I'm not most people as you say.

On the whole value thing, I value the experience rather than cost per hour. I have played hundreds of hours of splatoon, Street fighter, zelda and overwatch, but I value very short games suck as portal and Luigi's Manson just as much.

 

[biron_w]

Micro-transactions aren't there to assist publishers with additional revenue to create better games. They are there to make additional revenue so that said publishers can have a mega pay day. That's how capitalism and the profit motive works.

Exactly. There is a (what I believe to be false) belief that MT's are in games to keep the price down. But they aren't. There in games simply to boost profits.

And while the cost has gone up, it's publishers that have decided to make games cost so much. Who actually asked for, say, open world games too be as ridiculously big as they are now? And it's not just development that we pay for; Destiny has a $1/2 billion budget. I didn't ask for a budget that big. Activision decided on such a ridiculous budget. And gamers are suffering because of stupid budgets like that.

 

[mid_gen]

And while the cost has gone up, it's publishers that have decided to make games cost so much. Who actually asked for, say, open world games too be as ridiculously big as they are now? And it's not just development that we pay for; Destiny has a $1/2 billion budget. I didn't ask for a budget that big. Activision decided on such a ridiculous budget. And gamers are suffering because of stupid budgets like that.

Go take a read through the Assassin's Creed Origins threads on here and tell me that gamers don't want massive open worlds to play in, and that they are 'suffering'....

 

[Rusko187]

This is the problem I have with people bleating on about the rising costs of games.

If no one bought any form of micro-transactions and the sale was limited to today's price of an average game then the cost of development would decrease to suit the market demands.

The cost of development is flexible, and will be relative to the potential profits. Sure we may get a game at 80% of the potential quality if only 20% the budget is used (80/20 principle), but that would be much healthier for the industry and for consumers I reckon.

That won't happen though, we all want a GTA6 to be bigger and better... that's just how it is! If they released a half baked follow up to GTA5 you can imagine the uproar.. after all look at Destiny 2 (1.5).

Back to loot boxes, no one has a gun to your head to buy them.. there is no obligation to buy them, if you cannot live without a gun skin or whatever they bring then that's fine. For me I play Ultimate Team and do occasionally buy packs, probably over the course of the game I will spend like £30-40 on packs to get me started on building a squad and I'm comfortable doing that. However I've played it without buying packs and was still able to gain top players just by grafting for them.

 

[Kreeeee]

Back to loot boxes, no one has a gun to your head to buy them.. there is no obligation to buy them, if you cannot live without a gun skin or whatever they bring then that's fine. For me I play Ultimate Team and do occasionally buy packs, probably over the course of the game I will spend like £30-40 on packs to get me started on building a squad and I'm comfortable doing that. However I've played it without buying packs and was still able to gain top players just by grafting for them.

You're missing the problem. As people become more complacent about them they will become more prominent. Games are already starting to be designed to be tedious if you avoid them, and this will only get worse if people keep buying them.

It's also not always aesthetic items with the pay to win premise becoming more frequent.

 

[TALON1973]

I'll buy bf1 once all the map packs are out. I got into bf4 late but played it a constant 12 months before selling my PS4. Bf1 will be Xbox one X

 

[Moothead2]

Back to loot boxes, no one has a gun to your head to buy them.. there is no obligation to buy them, if you cannot live without a gun skin or whatever they bring then that's fine. For me I play Ultimate Team and do occasionally buy packs, probably over the course of the game I will spend like £30-40 on packs to get me started on building a squad and I'm comfortable doing that. However I've played it without buying packs and was still able to gain top players just by grafting for them.

So you're fine with developers pushing free to play game mechanics in a £50 game? If so, fine, but a lot of us think that's an absolute joke and shouldn't be encouraged.

Let's not even get started on the fact all these major publishers are dodging tax too. How will they ever survive .

 

[VincentHanna]

Now that is a big issue IMO.

EA are one of the worst according to a quick google search.

Ironic - because so are Google.

 

[BuffetSlayer]

No issues with loot boxes as long as they dont give unfair advantages and make a game P2W.

I personally dont use them but you cant blame businesses for catering to the market to make money. There clearly is a healthy demand for loot boxes. Nobody forces people to buy them. Even in P2W games you have the choice on how to spend your time and money.

Im an outspoken critic of the modern games industry but loot boxes are the least of the problems and in terms of cash ins which is worse? Loot boxes or repeated recycling of tired franchises that are essentially the same reskinned game that gets released half finished that we are expected to pay a premium for?

In my view there are far more meaty things to boytcot games and publishers over!

 

[biron_w]

No issues with loot boxes as long as they dont give unfair advantages and make a game P2W.

Which is kinda my whole point. I've no problem with them in principle but publishers are putting more and more things in them. For years COD has been putting weapons in them (and I admit I was stupid enough to spend money on them in BO3) and now we have the likes of EA putting P2W things in them in Battlefront 2. THAT'S my issue with them. They're going to start taking more and more things OUT of the game that you used to be able to get from levelling up, or doing challenges, and starting putting those things IN the loot boxes.

 

[redrooster303]

Hmm, a few posts ago I mentioned how it was good Sony didn't need the micro transactions because there focus is on first party titles to sell hardware. Well...

Open those wallets and get lubed up.

 

[VincentHanna]

and now we have the likes of EA putting P2W things in them in Battlefront 2.

No we don't

https://www.ea.com/en-gb/games/starwars/battlefront/battlefront-2/news/progression-oct-2017

• Epic Star Cards, the highest tier of Star Cards available at launch, have been removed from Crates. To help keep everyone on a level playing field, these Star Cards will primarily be available through crafting, with the exception of special Epic Star Cards available through pre-order, deluxe, and starter packs.
• You'll need to reach a certain rank to craft upgraded Star Cards. You won't be able to buy a bunch of Crates, grind everything up into crafting materials, and immediately use them to get super powerful Star Cards. You can only upgrade the ability to craft higher tier Star Cards by ranking up through playing the game.
• Weapons are locked behind specific milestones. While a select few will be found in Crates, the rest can only be attained by play. Want to unlock a new weapon for your Heavy? Play as a Heavy and you’ll gain access to the class’s new weapons.
• Class-specific gear and items can be unlocked by playing as them. As you progress through your favorite class, you’ll hit milestones granting you class-specific Crates. These will include a mix of Star Cards and Crafting Parts to benefit your class’s development.