By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
prayformojo on 24 April 2014
Edit Thread
naruball said:
prayformojo said:
naruball said:
 

Good point. I forgot about the ps2 era. I didn't game that much back then, so I'm not sure whether overall things were better, but I assume they were. The difference now is that in order to create AAA games, the development cycle is much longer if a company wants to create good graphics. If you go to the comment section of the latest spiderman game, you'll see that everyone is bashing it for its non spectacular graphics. So, the cost of production must have risen after the ps2 era, hence several studios closing after  a game or two failing to sell well. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think since the HD era, games cost more, but don't necessarily sell more, so the developers have to make more money from each game somehow. Special editions help and so does DLC.


You are correct. AAA games do cost alot more now than they did then. But do they cost so much more as to warrant (in some cases) another $30.00? I don't know. But then again, that shouldn't be our concern as consumers. We don't owe publishers anything.We shouldn't be made to feel like we need to pay upwards of $80.00 for a game. If these developers can't make a profit on a game at $60.00, maybe it's time they changed how they do business.

I do think they do. Maybe I'm wrong or simply wasn't following news so closely during the ps2 era, but AAA games like Tomb Raider prove that production costs have increased more than people realize. Same with FF13. In order to create such good graphics, complicated worlds etc. the resource needed must be insane. Financial reports from different companies show that games like Just Dance are the real goldmines. It is also the reason that the wii made so much money for ninty last gen. The games might be great, but in terms of resources needed are nowhere near the equivalant ps4/30 games.

As for the consumer, it seems to me that he doesn't mind paying for DLC as long as he doens't know that it's on disc. In other words, what they need to do is make a game, remove features and sell them to you later. That way both the consumer and the publisher are happy. As a consumer, I have realistic expectations from a developer. I don't want them to go bankrupt because I'm the customer and thus always right.

The only two types of DLC that I think should be criticized is Asura's Wrath, which requires you to buy an expensive dlc to see the freaking ending of the game and COD by removing guns from previous games and selling them later as DLC. Everything else is fine. I don't buy DLC (with very few exceptions) but I have no problem with people paying money to get Ryu in the same outfit, but different colour.

I guess the market will decide what it wants to support. I know personally, I am not willing to pay more than $60.00 for ANY game. Gaming is entertainment and thus, not #1 on my list of priorities. Maybe when I was 21 years old, you'd have seen me spending $1,000 in games on a $1,500 TV, dressed in rags, bumming my Mom's car and using a 10 year old gheto PC. But I'm not that way anymore. So if games continue on this sort of incline, I guess it'll be indie for me. Which, isn't all that bad really considering how good they've gotten.