| Cerebralbore101 said:
|
Why would their first party titles all be $70? All of their first party titles this gen weren't $60. Also, aren't Sony and other publishers already charging $70?
| Cerebralbore101 said: Translation: Whatever price point gets the most users, while also getting the most money up front is the best price point. Because you want people hooked on a single game forever. If they are hooked on a single game forever, they will spend all of their money on the microtransactions. So we have to find a nice balance between charging as much as we possibly can for the initial game without lowering the userbase. That way we can design all our games to be grindy messes, and then offer MTX as the solution. This will maximize profits! |
Again, isn't this how the business currently works? What publisher wouldn't love to have a strong fan base playing one game for years, constantly generating new revenue with expansions and microtransactions? How is this bad for a gamer? There have been countless games that tried to do this and for every failure there are plenty of Avengers and Anthem's. Please list for me an executive at any publisher, MicroSonyNintendo included, and tell me which of them wouldn't start drooling when being offered what you are describing. As long as the execution is good, this isn't an inherently bad business model.
Cerebralbore101 said:
|
Oh man can you please source these costs? I enjoy math, I'd love to see what "next to nothing" is. Also, people have been blaring this "all games will come this!!!!" horn for like a decade it seems. Yet we're not closer to it now than we were back then.
| Cerebralbore101 said: Translation: These games cost a bunch of money to make. So much so that we need to charge as much as humanly possible, while still having MTX in our games, or else we'll go bankrupt! Not really, but I'm going to lie to you about that because I want to swim in money like Scrooge McDuck! |
Another bizarre translation that comes off as whiny and anti-business and downright just silly and illogical. I'm all for consumer rights and pro consumer moves, but at some point you have to realize you've jumped the shark when it comes to consumer rights and are just being upset that all these publishers want to make money.
I don't get this idea that MS wants MTX in all their games and people talk as if they've been doing that all gen or something. The only game I remember it being an issue is Forza 7 and they fixed it. Their games aren't grindy or full of MTX. Sure you might have an outlier here or there but it's no different than Sony.
Equally confused as to why people are so set in stubborn ways against the idea of a good GaaS title. If done right, it's a great business model for consumers. For example I play Dead By Daylight. It came out in 2017 and I still play it daily. It cost me $30 to buy. Compare that to many $60 titles, and I would have been done with them in less than 30 hours. It monetizes the game in three ways:
DLC. Every three months or so, a new killer character, survivor character, and map are brought out. They cost anywhere from $8-10 altogether.
Battle Pass. Every other month or so a new rift comes out and you can play through the whole thing and earn cosmetics for free or pay $10 and unlock tons of stuff, plus your $10 back to buy the next rift.
Cosmetics. Buy all sorts of cosmetic items for killers and survivors. Laughably overpriced, or grind for them. Doesn't bother me, because they are cosmetic.
I've played this game for thousands of hours and whenever I finally find a SX, it will likely be the first game I download. There are plenty of good games like this that do content the right way, there's no need to mindless disregard everything associated with GaaS because you think your rights are at stake and that in the future every game will be a GaaS.
There will always be a place for strong single player games and games with a beginning and an end. No need to worry so much about it.
