By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Cerebralbore101 said:
DonFerrari said:
That is very pro-consumer....Now being less sarcastic. If a game can keep you interested in it for a full year so you won't buy 5 games, it isn't unreasonable to receive more than a single full purchase price from it. The problem is the lack of transparency and the dirty way they do it. If they come out and charge 200 or 300 for the game and you think it is fair sure go and buy, If they launch expansions or meaningful DLC for 30 bucks and you like it sure buy it... now to make the game obnoxiously grind to sell acceleration packs is shitty practice, worse imho than cosmetic overpriced DLC that even though we can argue is low cost and should be on the game already you don't really need to buy or get in the way of your enjoyment.Will wait to see how Phil Spencer or his advocates rephrase this interview.

The idea that getting somebody to play a game for 300 hours, must have meant that the devs put in a ton of work, and therefore need extra money in return doesn't always hold true.

Agree with you. My point isn't that they need or even deserve, but that it is reasonable that they try to make more money if they can keep you satisfied for longer, but that it need to be done in a good way (which almost never is).

It doesn't take that much for a game to keep somebody interested for a full year. They just need to design the game in order to make it compelling, instead of fun. Take the +100 score you get for killing somebody in a CoD game. That +100 that pops up is a little piece of reward for your brain. It trains your brain to keep going back to CoD, whether you truly enjoy CoD or not. When you find yourself going back to a game over and over again, even though said game makes you rage, that is a sign of addiction.

Agree with it, for the good or for the bad I tire fast of this type of thing.

But yeah, the way that they try to confuse the consumer with season passes, MTX, and 5 different "Digital Deluxe Editions" of a game is even worse, like you say. I don't think the $70 price of games is justified, but I'd take that if it meant no more content carving, and no more MTX. I'd take the $70 price tag if it meant we went back to good meaningful DLC ala Fallout's Broken Steel Expansion, or Witcher 3's DLC. Or Torna.

True, but yes we all know that isn't what is going to happen.

BTW, I do absolutely love how people try to defend cosmetic MTX as "Who cares, it's just cosmetic!" The number of free cosmetic customization options in GoW, Spiderman, and GoT is unmatched. Having different costumes to find in a game has been a staple of the industry for years. And it was all free. Now they are trying to charge you for those formerly free costumes. And the kicker is that all it takes is a dude working for $30 an hour for 4-5 hours to make a new skin or costume. And in exchange for that roughly $150 investment the company gets to sell thousands of copies of that skin for $2-$5. They could sell these skins for a nickle a pop, and still make boatloads of money. Charging $2-$5 for this cosmetic crap is just pure greed no matter the way you slice it.

Yes they are, can't disagree. On the other hand being egoist I do prefer companies make their money like that and keep my game cheap and dropping in price faster since will be other people paying for it than asking price of the game rise or the time to pricecut becomes much longer.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."