|
|
Post by Danjal on Nov 12, 2014 21:33:36 GMT
*IF* what Ubisoft says about AC:Unity is correct - then I fail to see why anyone would WANT to pay for it.
I mean, seriously. You end up paying to get access to ingame stuff *earlier*, you're paying to complete your game *FASTER*.
Now, I know some games are made so they drag on and on and are padded with grinding content and poorly made sequences.
But any game worth its salt is well made and shouldn't need you to cut out bits to enjoy it.
Allow me to rephrase that: "If you need to cut out bits to enjoy the game - it obviously was a poorly made game in the first place and you *WASTED YOUR MONEY*."
Now, I can see where this is going.
First, we had games that released and a short time later an expansion released with another campaign or whatnot.
Then someone figured that, if they released smaller batches of content (single levels) rather than full-campaign-scale expansions they could get it out more quickly.
Slowly the single levels (DLC) replaced the actual expansions, untill full-campaign expansions were no more.
THEN they started cutting out content and releasing it as DLC and expansions (Mass Effect protean character anyone? What about SC2's 3-way release?)
Oh, but these new games are MUCH heavier in graphical demand, it took so much more money and effort to get them the way they are!
Yep... It took so much *more* effort to create a game about half or a third of the size.
Where that money went? Well marketing and R&D ofcourse! Gotta splurge on finding out the popular buzzwords and themes.
Anywho, back to the matter at hand.
Why would any sane person (especially a gamer) pay $60 for a game, then have to pay another $15~100 to have to spend *LESS* time on that game.
Last time I checked most big releases are already about half the length or less than games used to be and they're only getting shorter.
They're also already made more and more accessible to a wider spread mainstream audience as gaming becomes more accepted as a hobby.
Now, I have no problem with gaming being mainstream - I have a problem with developers cutting corners.
No longer are games being made to create a good game. Instead people are trying to do a census on what the popular flavours are and then attempting to reverse engineer that into a game that can get them the highest profits.
"Our statistics say most people don't 100% complete the game." -> Cut out the content that most players don't touch.
"Our statistics say that zombies/pirates/aliens/random-buzzword are popular right now." -> Add in *subject* randomly whether it fits the game/theme or not.
"Our statistics say that multiplayer/coop is all the rage right now." -> Force a multiplayer/coop bit into your IP, or worse - convert your IP to fit this new playstyle making it a non-recognizable mess. (resident evil anyone?)
Instead of trying to build a good game from the ground up, everyone seems to be trying to copy or mimic something without looking at the general structure of what is being made.
Resulting in horror games that are basicly coverbased shooters, resulting in padding and filler content that needs to be removed through micro-transactions, resulting in content being cut out of the game to be reintroduced at a later date.
Now, its not all bad. There ARE those that do well by their customers.
Paradox Interactive releases a free content update whenever there is a new expansion that gives the 'base' users access to a bunch of new features and overhauls the game.
Even EA is slowly learning and has released free content to its players by adding ghosts and swimming pools 'back' into The Sims without charge.
Yet at the end of the day, they are a drop in the ocean.
I just read an interview with one of the guys working on World of Warcraft saying that they have the next TWO expansions already in the works.
And that they aren't planning on adding any content that the original fans have been *begging* for - why? Well, its a new era and the NEW kind of player prefers to have an easier time. So lets remove all these nasty and boring bits of content that make the game difficult and focus on reaching a wider spread audience instead!
|
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Nov 12, 2014 21:36:45 GMT
Wasn't there sometimes an option to insert coins for extra lives or more continues though? =O I seem to vaguely remember that with some games. Yes, but that's not the same thing as adding content for money. You either have the choice to quit the game and try again from the beginning some other time or to insert a coin if you want to play some more without having to start from scratch. AC:Unity actually "removes" content if you pay. Since you don't have to acquire the items you purchase. Making the game shorter and easier. |
|
|
|
Post by Gmr Leon on Nov 12, 2014 21:52:48 GMT
Yes, but that's not the same thing as adding content for money. You either have the choice to quit the game and try again from the beginning some other time or to insert a coin if you want to play some more without having to start from scratch. AC:Unity actually "removes" content if you pay. Since you don't have to acquire the items you purchase. Making the game shorter and easier. This is why I was thinking paying for extra lives/continues worked as a precursor to microtransactions. It removes the need to continue from the start, in a similar way that current microtransactions remove the artificial obstructions placed to make you wait. The biggest difference here being that arcade games were generally fun, which encouraged you to be willing to come back and start over or, if you felt you were about to get it right, toss in some cash to keep going. I'm sure there were some awful ones too, but given the designs of the time and the nature of arcades, word of mouth would probably kill those games off quickly. Freemium games don't have any of that going for them since they're always available, they simply expect to be able to leech off you for money without any complete satisfaction. Sure, they need user retention to make money just as the arcades did, but not in the same way. Instead of crushing you with (possibly imbalanced) challenge, they crush you with tedium. |
|
|
|
Post by Qetesh on Nov 12, 2014 23:13:06 GMT
I would also interject that it is somewhat apples to oranges to bring arcade games into it. The coolest thing about consoles is that they were in your HOME and not in some Arcade place you had to travel too. You can play a console day and night without having "closing hours" and you could bring your own snacks and beverages as you chose. Is that really much difference to that than to why the "movie" out experience is dying out compared to the same comforts of home as a console versus the Arcade? Sure both the Arcade and theatre have a bigger "wow" factor, but ultimately people seem to have cast their vote that the home experience of their console games and movies will win out in the long run due to the fact of convenience.
|
|
|
|
Post by engarde on Nov 13, 2014 9:19:16 GMT
Qetesh, a two hour gap between dupes! Weird.
|
|
heggers
Master
Posts: 203 
Pledge level: Partner
|
Post by heggers on Nov 13, 2014 9:30:58 GMT
Okay, I know I said farewell just recently but I still lurk here and want to weigh in my opinions. Saying there is a precedent for something is a really flimsy excuse so let me throw in a straw man of my own. There was also a precedent banning homosexuality and making it a crime. Just because the precedent is there doesn't make it right and thankfully we have become enlightened enough in recent years to realise the error of our ways. There is a precedent for a lot of things in the past. Just because someone else did it I'd hope the industry was smart enough to realise it wasn't right and discontinue the practice. Given the practices of EA and Ubisoft in recent years it seems they lack that intelligence. So we look to the indies to find this wisdom. Most seem to have got the idea. One or two (not looking anywhere specific) still haven't. Okay, that's my two cents for what its worth. I don't work in the video game industry, so this is my view as an outsider and a consumer. Its likely I could be talking out my arse. Hey everyone I've missed you and now I say farewell again. Maybe I'll drop my head in every so often  TL/DR: Saying there is precedent is a straw man excuse. I don't know what I'm talking about. Hi and bye |
|
|
|
Post by Qetesh on Nov 13, 2014 10:07:34 GMT
Qetesh, a two hour gap between dupes! Weird. LOL, I have no idea how. |
|
Lord Ba'al
Supreme Deity
Posts: 6,260
Pledge level: Half a Partner
I like: Cats; single malt Scotch; Stargate; Amiga; fried potatoes; retro gaming; cheese; snickers; sticky tape.
I don't like: Dimples in the bottom of scotch bottles; Facebook games masquerading as godgames.
Steam: stonelesscutter
GOG: stonelesscutter
|
Post by Lord Ba'al on Nov 13, 2014 10:23:11 GMT
Hey everyone I've missed you and now I say farewell again. Maybe I'll drop my head in every so often Anytime bro. |
|
|
|
Post by Monkeythumbz on Nov 13, 2014 10:44:12 GMT
Well, there's a few reasons arcades faded out as home console ownership rose...Which I suspect we can attribute, at least in part, to consumer recognition of the value of an end-product with a single-cost compared to service with multiple costs, which I think you could argue arcades more or less were. Arcades mainly started to die out in popularity in the 16-bit era when home consoles could compete with them graphically. Graphical oomph really did drive both the industry and the community throughout the '80s and much of the '90s. Arcades never asked you to input extra coins while you were playing a game to 'enhance' the gaming experience. It's not a perfect analogy by any means, it's something the industry can choose to leverage as a counter-argument to complaints against MTX in AAA games. This is why I was thinking paying for extra lives/continues worked as a precursor to microtransactions. It removes the need to continue from the start, in a similar way that current microtransactions remove the artificial obstructions placed to make you wait. The biggest difference here being that arcade games were generally fun, which encouraged you to be willing to come back and start over or, if you felt you were about to get it right, toss in some cash to keep going. Yes, I agree. I would also interject that it is somewhat apples to oranges to bring arcade games into it. The coolest thing about consoles is that they were in your HOME and not in some Arcade place you had to travel too. You can play a console day and night without having "closing hours" and you could bring your own snacks and beverages as you chose. Is that really much difference to that than to why the "movie" out experience is dying out compared to the same comforts of home as a console versus the Arcade? Sure both the Arcade and theatre have a bigger "wow" factor, but ultimately people seem to have cast their vote that the home experience of their console games and movies will win out in the long run due to the fact of convenience. I was just talking about business models, not end-user experience. Doing so really would be apples and oranges, however that doesn't negate that monetisation models employed by the industry are informed by one another. |
|
|
|
Post by engarde on Nov 13, 2014 10:47:15 GMT
.. except the arcades in airports with the business men feeding lots of golden coins in between expense account drinks...
or maybe that was just me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Monkeythumbz on Nov 13, 2014 10:54:37 GMT
*IF* what Ubisoft says about AC:Unity is correct - then I fail to see why anyone would WANT to pay for it. I mean, seriously. You end up paying to get access to ingame stuff *earlier*, you're paying to complete your game *FASTER*. Now, I know some games are made so they drag on and on and are padded with grinding content and poorly made sequences. But any game worth its salt is well made and shouldn't need you to cut out bits to enjoy it. Allow me to rephrase that: "If you need to cut out bits to enjoy the game - it obviously was a poorly made game in the first place and you *WASTED YOUR MONEY*." I disagree and have absolutely no problem paying for accelerators (that's what such devices/mechanics are called internally). I love playing games, yet I'm you're typical "disposable-cash rich, free-time poor" Western worker. While I like expansive content, I also like to complete every game I play (and feel very guilty when I don't). So, I don't mind dropping a few extra quid here and there to help me alleviate grind that I know would appeal to teenagers/students/people with more free time than I do on their hands. For example, I loved BioShock: Infinite, but would have happily paid extra cash to remove the need for me to have checked every single one of those darn tubes/bins for essential items like health, ammo and equipment. Equally, in Assassin's Creed 4, I had zero problems paying to unlock all the hidden collectible items on my world map so that treasure hunting was a smoother, swifter and more enjoyable experience. Nevertheless, I appreciate that not everyone is of the same opinion. Provided such features are truly optional and never mandatory, conferring no in-game benefit or advantage and only helps to reduce overall play-time, then I'm okay with them being in the console games I play. After all, I like to play lots of different games providing a variety of experiences and while I play my games one at a time, I don't like being immersed in the same experience for too long. If I can 100% a game in 10 - 12 hours before moving on to the next one, so much the better. I suppose the only exceptions to that are RPGs like Diablo 3 and Mass Effect, but you know what? I wouldn't mind at all if they were only 20 - 30 hours long instead of 40 - 60 hours. |
|
|
|
Post by engarde on Nov 13, 2014 11:21:12 GMT
I disagree almost entirely.
I'm equally in the cash rich time poor set, but because my time is scarce it needs to count. It has higher value to me than the cash. Paying for unlocks devalues my time, to me. I'd rather play for time longer for less progress but give myself more perceived value for the effort.
You say accelerators, I say poor gamer abilities.
You say happy to pay I say whatever, I'm not - I'll earn my advancement.
If the game suffers as a consequence then I call BS on the game design.
|
|
|
|
Post by Monkeythumbz on Nov 13, 2014 11:32:03 GMT
If the game suffers as a consequence then I call BS on the game design. I think that's a fair comment - I'm not really a fan of padding or grinding in any context these days, although I very much used to be in the original Diablo and Escape Velocity era of the mid-to-late '90s. However, I don't get to dictate game design in any of the games I play, so I get what I'm given. I really enjoyed BioShock Inifinite for example and don't regret my time with it... it's just if there had been an option to chuck a few extra quid at the game to remove all the distracting, repetitive rummaging around through bins, I'd have happily done so. You say accelerators, I say poor gamer abilities. You say happy to pay I say whatever, I'm not - I'll earn my advancement. I think you and I approach games a bit differently. I don't play games to challenge myself or to compete with others, but purely for entertainment of an escapist wish-fulfilment fantasy sort. I don't set about testing my gamer abilities and I have no mind to; equally the thought of having to "earn" my entertainment in my leisure time doesn't appeal to me - after all, that's what I go to work for! This is why games like Dark Souls don't appeal to me - I very much dislike progression blockers. However, I do recognise that particular series (and hard/difficult games in general) are very popular right now. I'm just glad there's enough variety of style in the videogames available to us for both tastes and mide-sets to be catered for without detriment to one or the other. |
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Nov 13, 2014 12:04:55 GMT
*IF* what Ubisoft says about AC:Unity is correct - then I fail to see why anyone would WANT to pay for it. I mean, seriously. You end up paying to get access to ingame stuff *earlier*, you're paying to complete your game *FASTER*. Now, I know some games are made so they drag on and on and are padded with grinding content and poorly made sequences. But any game worth its salt is well made and shouldn't need you to cut out bits to enjoy it. Allow me to rephrase that: "If you need to cut out bits to enjoy the game - it obviously was a poorly made game in the first place and you *WASTED YOUR MONEY*." I disagree and have absolutely no problem paying for accelerators (that's what such devices/mechanics are called internally). I love playing games, yet I'm you're typical "disposable-cash rich, free-time poor" Western worker. While I like expansive content, I also like to complete every game I play (and feel very guilty when I don't). So, I don't mind dropping a few extra quid here and there to help me alleviate grind that I know would appeal to teenagers/students/people with more free time than I do on their hands. For example, I loved BioShock: Infinite, but would have happily paid extra cash to remove the need for me to have checked every single one of those darn tubes/bins for essential items like health, ammo and equipment. Equally, in Assassin's Creed 4, I had zero problems paying to unlock all the hidden collectible items on my world map so that treasure hunting was a smoother, swifter and more enjoyable experience. Nevertheless, I appreciate that not everyone is of the same opinion. Provided such features are truly optional and never mandatory, conferring no in-game benefit or advantage and only helps to reduce overall play-time, then I'm okay with them being in the console games I play. After all, I like to play lots of different games providing a variety of experiences and while I play my games one at a time, I don't like being immersed in the same experience for too long. If I can 100% a game in 10 - 12 hours before moving on to the next one, so much the better. I suppose the only exceptions to that are RPGs like Diablo 3 and Mass Effect, but you know what? I wouldn't mind at all if they were only 20 - 30 hours long instead of 40 - 60 hours. What you're describing here is part of a problem that the games industry at large is facing. We're seeing faster and faster releases of franchises, as they "need" to deliver annually or bi-annually. More and more titles get released, and they often are lacking in quality content. They either thrive on multiplayer for their substantial content or they have a lot of padding. Now, I've played Bioshock: Infinite - my steam record says it took me 32 hours. By no means short for modern games, but I've seen longer. I haven't had the chance to play AC:IV, I did play AC:III and I gave up after I got bored of the padding. Collectibles are fun - but they're more of an 'extra', so it seems to me you're facing a luxury problem here... Moreover, if by "paying to unlock all hidden collectibles on the world map" you mean buying the treasure maps - those are bought INGAME, or atleast they've always been in the previous AC titles (Like I said, haven't played IV, if they made it micro-transaction then I'm seriously disappointed in Ubisoft). My point being - and since you're "part of the industry" you actually have an inside perspective on this. A lot of games are being developed with padding to fill out content. As you say, there are chores and tasks that you would rather skip that are used to fill out the game. Frankly I think its a bit of an issue that people would rather have TWO 20 hour games they pay $60 for, than have one 40~60 hour game you pay $60 for - assuming both games are "equivalent" in content and are not padded. You're effectively pushing the industry to make shorter and shallower games - because you want to "stay with the trends"? Now, maybe I'm crazy here... But since we're all here complaining about padding and filler content - perhaps we should push for higher quality games, rather than a higher QUANTITY in games? Stop demanding your yearly fix, and spread things out. Why get a 10~20 hour Assassin's Creed every year, if you could get a far better Assassin's Creed every 2~3 years instead? Why get a new Call of Duty/Battlefield annually when you spend most your time repeating the same old re-released maps online anyway? If you need or want to skip on content - then its poor content and you basicly just threw your money into a fire. You just ordered a $60 steak and paid extra to have half of it removed because you can't eat it all?! Now admittedly, this isn't a one-solution problem. There's a very simple alternative, one that is shown through the youtube community (among other places...) Rather than upping the dosage, you spread it out. So instead of a single 1 hour video, they make two 30 minute or three 20 minute video's and release them over a period of days. Its funny, because they release the same amount of content over the course of a week - only in bitesized portions to fit this luxury plagued western mentality. Have you ever considered that instead of pushing for $60 titles, and pushing down the content. Its time to DROP that pricetag to match the shorter games? If a 40~60 hour Dragon Age or Mass Effect is fair - but people only have time for 20~30 hours (and again, we're assuming no drop in quality). Then wouldn't an equal drop in price be equally fair? You may be swimming in money that you're willing to burn it on games you don't have time to play, but last I checked you were not giving it out on streetcorners because you have more you can ever use? Unless I'm mistaken, in which case I'm sure there are more than enough people here that would hand you their bank details so you could assist them. ;p TL;DR - Still the consumer mentality inside of you. Focus on the games you want to play and will enjoy the most if you're low on time. You don't *NEED* to play them all do you? |
|
|
|
Post by Monkeythumbz on Nov 13, 2014 13:48:41 GMT
Collectibles are fun - but they're more of an 'extra', so it seems to me you're facing a luxury problem here... Yes, I agree; however the OCD nature of may personal play style means I always like to 100% (or at least aim for that) in most of the games I play. Moreover, if by "paying to unlock all hidden collectibles on the world map" you mean buying the treasure maps - those are bought INGAME, or atleast they've always been in the previous AC titles (Like I said, haven't played IV, if they made it micro-transaction then I'm seriously disappointed in Ubisoft). Yes, there was a paid option to unlock those markers. It wasn't expensive and I didn't mind paying for it at all. My point being - and since you're "part of the industry" you actually have an inside perspective on this. A lot of games are being developed with padding to fill out content. As you say, there are chores and tasks that you would rather skip that are used to fill out the game. Personally, I don't think quantity equals quality. Monument Valley - a game I finished in a single session and have completed three times now - has been one of my favourite games this year and it only cost me about the same as a MacDonald's meal. As a gamer, I'd much rather lots of shorter (10 - 20 hours), fun, different experiences than fewer bloated ones. I like seeing what new mechanics/art/worlds/settings/characters/interactions different developers have to offer, rather than sticking with the same experience for hundreds of hours. Frankly I think its a bit of an issue that people would rather have TWO 20 hour games they pay $60 for, than have one 40~60 hour game you pay $60 for - assuming both games are "equivalent" in content and are not padded. You're effectively pushing the industry to make shorter and shallower games - because you want to "stay with the trends"? I'm not pushing anything! We just have a difference of opinion and that's okay. I'd never prescribe my tastes on others, I'm just stating a personal preference, that's all. Have you ever considered that instead of pushing for $60 titles, and pushing down the content. Its time to DROP that pricetag to match the shorter games? If a 40~60 hour Dragon Age or Mass Effect is fair - but people only have time for 20~30 hours (and again, we're assuming no drop in quality). Then wouldn't an equal drop in price be equally fair? The cost of console games hasn't really gone up all that much since the '90s, when the cost of production has sky-rocketed from less than $10 million USD in the PSOne era to over $40 million USD in the modern era. Given the amount of entertainment hours most games provide in comparison to, say, a movie, I don't think the pricing is especially exploitative. As for pricing, it all comes down to cost of production and RoI. Console games are hideously expensive and shorter games aren't always cheaper to make than longer ones. I've no idea how, for example, Mass Effect 3 makes its money back when it only sells around 3 - 4 million units each release. That's about the same as Mortal Kombat, which would have been much cheaper to develop. I think both are priced quite fairly, given the number of potential play hours both games provide. There's a very simple alternative, one that is shown through the youtube community (among other places...) Rather than upping the dosage, you spread it out. So instead of a single 1 hour video, they make two 30 minute or three 20 minute video's and release them over a period of days. Its funny, because they release the same amount of content over the course of a week - only in bitesized portions to fit this luxury plagued western mentality. What you're talking about is episodic content/games. I agree, I really like that style of game, it suits me very well. However, the cost of production for Episode #1 can often be the same as the rest of the series combined, so it doesn't mean it's an overall most cost-effective method of production. |
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Nov 13, 2014 14:27:51 GMT
Frankly I think its a bit of an issue that people would rather have TWO 20 hour games they pay $60 for, than have one 40~60 hour game you pay $60 for - assuming both games are "equivalent" in content and are not padded. You're effectively pushing the industry to make shorter and shallower games - because you want to "stay with the trends"? I'm not pushing anything! We just have a difference of opinion and that's okay. I'd never prescribe my tastes on others, I'm just stating a personal preference, that's all. Have you ever considered that instead of pushing for $60 titles, and pushing down the content. Its time to DROP that pricetag to match the shorter games? If a 40~60 hour Dragon Age or Mass Effect is fair - but people only have time for 20~30 hours (and again, we're assuming no drop in quality). Then wouldn't an equal drop in price be equally fair? The cost of console games hasn't really gone up all that much since the '90s, when the cost of production has sky-rocketed from less than $10 million USD in the PSOne era to over $40 million USD in the modern era. Given the amount of entertainment hours most games provide in comparison to, say, a movie, I don't think the pricing is especially exploitative. As for pricing, it all comes down to cost of production and RoI. Console games are hideously expensive and shorter games aren't always cheaper to make than longer ones. I've no idea how, for example, Mass Effect 3 makes its money back when it only sells around 3 - 4 million units each release. That's about the same as Mortal Kombat, which would have been much cheaper to develop. I think both are priced quite fairly, given the number of potential play hours both games provide. There's a very simple alternative, one that is shown through the youtube community (among other places...) Rather than upping the dosage, you spread it out. So instead of a single 1 hour video, they make two 30 minute or three 20 minute video's and release them over a period of days. Its funny, because they release the same amount of content over the course of a week - only in bitesized portions to fit this luxury plagued western mentality. What you're talking about is episodic content/games. I agree, I really like that style of game, it suits me very well. However, the cost of production for Episode #1 can often be the same as the rest of the series combined, so it doesn't mean it's an overall most cost-effective method of production. By buying games and either not finishing them or "complaining" that you don't have enough time, you are pushing for shorter games though. Perhaps not intentionally, but that is the result. 22cans is a prime example of using such game statistics to further game development - don't you guys use analytics to find out what content gets played the most, and what isn't? To find out what is popular and what isn't, to find out what people go through fast and what lasts players longer? The industry at large does the same. And as a result, games are made shorter because the majority of the audience doesn't actually FINISH them before moving on to the next title. You say you wouldn't mind a 20~30 hour game instead of a 40~60 hour one - they hear you and they oblige... But they don't lower the pricetag knowing you'll still pay $60 since you have more money than free time. Cut down on development costs by cutting content, leave the pricetag. Instant profit. You claim the cost of development has gone up? Really now? Then how come all those precious small titles you mention (Monument Valley being among those) don't cost millions? Just because the big hitters are throwing more and more money at the problem, doesn't seem to help them create better games. Not to mention a large amount of that money goes into corporate overhead and marketing - NOT into the actual game. Not to mention, comparing it to "say a movie" is like comparing apples to oranges - they are drastically different products. You may quantify your entertainment value and go "Hey, I'm still doing better than if I went to the movies" - but the reality is they're not the same. If the industry is demanding millions in fees for licencing and other nonsense - perhaps we as a whole (developers and consumers alike) should take a step back and move away from this artificially controlled market. "10~20 years ago" they developed for one, MAYBE two, platforms. Now they have to develop for 3 or more - and often pay a licencing fee for each. Not to mention seperate marketing costs for each, more widespread localization costs as demands worldwide increase and so on. - Fee to license XBone/PS4 access - *KA-CHING*
- Fee to license uberrealistic graphics engine - *KA-CHING*
- Millions stuck into outdated marketing techniques - *KA-CHING*
If more money guaranteed better titles I'd say there'd be some merit there. But it doesn't... There's some messed up theory going in ESPECIALLY around the bigger developers and publishers that you *NEED* to spend 40~60 million on a title to have it be good. The only reason the console rivalry exists is because there are half a dozen third parties that want a cut of the pie. Microsoft wants its share, Sony wants its share, Nintendo wants its share, the investors want their share, the publisher wants its share, the creator of the middleware/engine wants its share and so on. And since the top man wants to ensure his share stays the same, the pie has to become BIGGER! Again, your favorite sockpuppet "Monument Valley" proves differently. You don't need a massive investment to make a good game - infact, if you focus blindly on the money you're more likely to make flaws in design. Resulting in a poor game thats not as fun to play. If the cost of a single episode of content is equivalent to that of a full game - perhaps you're doing something wrong... Perhaps its time to look at where the money is going and trim the fat if you will. Get rid of all the unnecessary expenses and focus on what is important. Do you really NEED all those intermediaries still? Do you really NEED that department running full-time? Times are changing - and the people in charge are doing their damnest to hold on to the old ways because thats where their money is coming from. Your very own favorite titles are proof that all these multi-million dollar developments aren't necessarily the future when it comes to great games. Its these smaller ones that have motivated and invested developers and innovative design - NOT the multi-million-dollar factorylines that are producing the great games these days. From my own perspective? There's only been a handful of "big" titles in the past decade that I really enjoyed. The rest were all smaller budget / indie titles. All the big IP's and brands? Diluted, milked out cashcows... |
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Nov 13, 2014 14:41:03 GMT
Collectibles are fun - but they're more of an 'extra', so it seems to me you're facing a luxury problem here... Yes, I agree; however the OCD nature of may personal play style means I always like to 100% (or at least aim for that) in most of the games I play. Moreover, if by "paying to unlock all hidden collectibles on the world map" you mean buying the treasure maps - those are bought INGAME, or atleast they've always been in the previous AC titles (Like I said, haven't played IV, if they made it micro-transaction then I'm seriously disappointed in Ubisoft). Yes, there was a paid option to unlock those markers. It wasn't expensive and I didn't mind paying for it at all. My point being - and since you're "part of the industry" you actually have an inside perspective on this. A lot of games are being developed with padding to fill out content. As you say, there are chores and tasks that you would rather skip that are used to fill out the game. Personally, I don't think quantity equals quality. Monument Valley - a game I finished in a single session and have completed three times now - has been one of my favourite games this year and it only cost me about the same as a MacDonald's meal. As a gamer, I'd much rather lots of shorter (10 - 20 hours), fun, different experiences than fewer bloated ones. I like seeing what new mechanics/art/worlds/settings/characters/interactions different developers have to offer, rather than sticking with the same experience for hundreds of hours. The first point is a luxury problem - no reason to make shorter games... The second point however - charging real money for something that previously was part of the game, thats the very thing we're talking about. There's no "added costs" to cover that. Thats a blatant money grab and you're letting it through because "its not that expensive". Please transfer "not that expensive" to my bank account every month from now on - I mean if you don't care about it anyway and its nothing you didn't have before you won't miss it right? You see the logic? You're paying extra for *nothing*. Your last point takes the cake though. "I would rather have a shorter quality experience than a longer bloated one." If you had paid attention - the entire idea is that a good game does not have BLOATED DESIGN. If the game feels bloated its poor design and should not have been part of the game - that doesn't mean that every 40~60 hour game is by definition bloated and should be trimmed down to 20~30 hours instead. I judge a game by its own merits - not some preconceived notion of "quality versus content". Which means some short games are great and some are not. (Portal and Antichamber are great, *theme/topic* Simulator 2014/2015 generally isn't and neither is "Bad Rats") Some long games are great and some are not. (I love the Mass Effect series and Dragon Age, Fallout and Elder Scrolls are equally awesome - meanwhile Kingdoms of Amalur felt like a drag and Saints Row The Third was one of the biggest mispurchases I've made in the past decade, Sacred 3 similarly is a piece of shovelware relying solely on the reputation of its predecessors) Don't get me wrong, I understand the need for variety. But that doesn't mean you need to judge a game purely based on its length. Nor does it mean that just because you have less time on your hands, the lesser content is somehow worth more money. Because as I said, its a direct cause and effect. Your playstyle (as part of a larger group) directly affects how future games are developed. And popular opinion shapes what games are made in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by engarde on Nov 13, 2014 15:02:30 GMT
In terms of getting the 100%, yes in games like AC that is something I attempt. However if I can do the same by spending real world cash instead of merely time, it devalues it for me and might actually stop me bothering. So in COD say I might apply a skin to my weapon I unlock by doing something in game which means I've got 1000 kills with a weapon or fast 1st kills in a game or whatever, but I'm never tempted to use what were previously MS points now cash to get that kind of add on.
In terms of no pay console games the couple I've played have allowed me to accrue in game credits to buy my next tank or change my weaponry etc, again I've not thought to pay to play them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Nov 13, 2014 15:03:53 GMT
Anywho, putting it all together.
Yes, different people have different interests.
Some enjoy Call of Duty or League of Legends and thrive on competative multiplayer content, others prefer short and concise games that they can finish in an evening or a week.
Some will replay a game 2~3 times, or untill they can get it *perfectly*, others will grind to get that 100% of get all the challenges/achievements.
There are people that spend all their time on casual mobile games and there are those that spend all their waking hours in an MMO.
But thats not what we're talking about is it?
We're talking about quality design.
As I mentioned above. I value Portal (both of them) equally as much as I do Minecraft of Skyrim.
These titles are among my best purchases in the past decade. And they're drastically different from eachother.
Similarly I do not regret the year I spend playing World of Warcraft, I had a blast with friends I made online - some of which I keep in contact with even though I stopped playing around the time Icecrowd Citadel wasn't even fully released.
My point being - the cost or length of a game do not define the quality of a game.
However the player behaviour DO determine the future of game design since statistics and analysis are more important than ever.
And I've noticed a trend in self-fullfilling prophecy there.
A developer/publisher will release a poor bit of content, afterall they don't really believe it'll work.
The consumer doesn't like this poor bit of content and they feel justified in going "See, the don't like it - lets not make more of it!"
You're not even giving people a chance.
You may know of the fact that few JRPG's make it into the west - why? Because the japanese developers believe they won't really do well in the western market and thus localization isn't worth the effort.
Yet every single title that reaches the western market is an instant success.
Valkyria Chronicles being release on Steam/PC being the last in a long line of massive hits.
Kickstarter/crowdfunding shows the same - genres that were doomed as "not profitable enough" and never getting any funding or attention through traditional models manage to get a ton of attention though kickstarter.
And sure, mistakes are made - usually through poor decisions and lack of experience by the developing team. (Something visible within 22cans aswell...)
But one thing stands clear above that mess - they didn't fail because the consumer doesn't want these titles to exist.
Game development is expensive. I won't deny that. And that means that some titles deserve their $60 pricetag.
But when you can clearly see that 40~60% of content has been *CUT* away, its hard to justify that its still worth that pricetag and that the money spend was actually justified.
ESPECIALLY when that money gets spend on corporate overhead and marketing... Rather than on the game itself.
Lets take a step back and remember what the priority is here - which entity is to serve which?
Governments exist to serve and support their people - not the other way around.
Monetization exists to serve funding the design and development - not the other way around.
Once the game design starts to serve the priorities of management and marketing, you're doing things backwards and you're focusing on the WRONG industry.
Which leads to bloated and poorly made games.
The only reason that *generic game developer/publisher* needs to do annual titles, is because their investors and stockholders are expecting their annual profits.
So, they need to find a way to keep people hooked, to keep them playing - they need to find a way to get their annual batch of addiction out there and keep the supply going.
But since satiation is a serious problem, it becomes necessary to drill deeper and hit wider and wider audiences to maintain profit margins. Which means spreading yourself thin.
Higher marketing costs to reach the wider audience, spread out development to cover the different concepts and content, artists and writers working overtime to generate the content that normally would've been produced in 3~4 years rather than 1.
And ofcourse to justify this, the content goes down, but the price stays the same (afterall, they can't just increase the price...)
Meanwhile, your friendly neighbourhood indie dev kicks out hits title that he (or she) poured their heart and soul into. Taking the time they need and the money they need - but no more. No overbloated overhead costs or profit margins to uphold to sate the hunger of investors or stockholder. Just the drive to make a good game and sustain yourself so you can continue doing what you love.
Sorry for the lengthy posts. ;p
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2014 15:14:22 GMT
Okay, I know I said farewell just recently but I still lurk here and want to weigh in my opinions. Saying there is a precedent for something is a really flimsy excuse so let me throw in a straw man of my own. There was also a precedent banning homosexuality and making it a crime. Just because the precedent is there doesn't make it right and thankfully we have become enlightened enough in recent years to realise the error of our ways. There is a precedent for a lot of things in the past. Just because someone else did it I'd hope the industry was smart enough to realise it wasn't right and discontinue the practice. Given the practices of EA and Ubisoft in recent years it seems they lack that intelligence. So we look to the indies to find this wisdom. Most seem to have got the idea. One or two (not looking anywhere specific) still haven't. Okay, that's my two cents for what its worth. I don't work in the video game industry, so this is my view as an outsider and a consumer. Its likely I could be talking out my arse. Hey everyone I've missed you and now I say farewell again. Maybe I'll drop my head in every so often TL/DR: Saying there is precedent is a straw man excuse. I don't know what I'm talking about. Hi and bye Don't sweat it Heg. You make a good point, one that's value unfortunately seems to ebb and flow depending on certain persons momentary standing on an issue. I do and have worked in and with the game industry for a very long time, and I personally believe there are many greedy people in the industry that have sold their soul to the profit monster, and are simply full of horse$#!*.  Farewell again! |
|
