shikamaru317 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
shikamaru317 said:
Sorry, I meant to say Infinite will probably earn $1b+ in revenue, not profit. After you factor in the development budget (which is already huge due to 343's large size and the fact that the game has 5 years of development already) and the marketing budget (which is sure to be huge, probably over $100m), the profit will be much lower. Sure MS could technically afford to support Infinite with all free multiplayer DLC, but spending $72m on DLC development over 6 years with no return on investment for that spend looks bad to the shareholders. |
With a 150 man dev team their multiplayer mode would have to be insanely massive with a new map every week, new weapons (made from completely new 3D models), a new game mode every month, two or three new vehicles every month, massive 120 man war maps, etc. I'm not expecting that though. I'm expecting a new map every month, and five new skins a week. If they really are spending that kind of money and manpower, just for the bolded, then they are massively mismanaged. Multiplayer content simply does not require that sort of money or manpower.
Also, let's remember that something like Halo Infinite is supposed to be a loss leader. It is supposed to be the one game that gets everybody to buy their console, which gets everybody to buy 3rd party games on their console, which gains them royalty revenue off those 3rd party games. So yeah, they could conceivably drop 72 million with no return on investment and justify it to shareholders. |
150 people on the post-release multiplayer team is a guestimate on my part, no idea what the actual team size will be. 343 has nearly 600 devs now, an after Infinite releases they will presumably be split between ongoing Halo MCC support, Infinite multiplayer support, Infinite singleplayer support (MS said they want to support Infinite with singleplayer and multiplayer content all generation), and a team working on a Halo spinoff game or new IP maybe. What the ratio of devs per team will be, I have no idea. I would guess the Infinite singpleplayer team will be the largest, since they will presumably be developing paid singleplayer expansions for Infinite's campaign. Who knows, maybe they will release the singleplayer updates for free as well, and fund both the free multiplayer maps, modes, weapons, and vehicles, and free singleplayer expansions, with the microtransactions for the multiplayer. |
If they did a new 10 hour single player campaign, with all new assets, story, locations, etc., every year for free, then that would be fine. Something like that would make the MTX make sense.
zero129 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
zero129 said:
@Cerebralbore101 The only part of your post id like you to answer. "All signs indicate that Halo Infinite is going full on GaaS mode though, that is where the idea that MS wants MTX in all of their games." Where has MS said the full Halo Experience and all their games going forward are going to be GaaS games full with "needed" micro-transactions?. A better way to put it for you. If say Horizon 2 launched and it was coming with 2 modes separate btw from each other You get the full single player experience. But then you can also download a free2play online mode that clearly is going to have cosmetic items for sale to keep up the costs for this free2play portion that people can play for nothing and in no way effects the single player portion that people who like single player games can buy. How does that effect you?. Can you not see the difference here or is your bias clouding your judgment?. |
You're assuming a free2play multiplayer mode that was built off the assets of the single player game would cost a significant amount of money to make. It doesn't. Your theoretical HZD2 multiplayer mode could be sold for $15 as a stand alone purchase, no MTX involved, and still make a ton of money. |
Thats side tracking the question i asked. And your also assuming that the Online part costs nothing to make or keep on supporting. It is free2play you know... The single player part your talking about thats what your paying for and that has no mtx in it.. |
It's not sidetracking anything. It logically follows that since multiplayer costs next to nothing to make, taking a HZD2 multiplayer mode, and adding MTX is a rip off. Multiplayer modes take 10% of the effort to make as single player modes. Making multiplayer is just a matter of recycling the assets that were already done in single player. Continual support of a multiplayer mode costs pennies compared to the main development of the game.
sales2099 said:
So like you said. There's no comparison. You just had it backwards. |
Just sounds like you are conditioned to lean towards single player only games...largely because I believe that’s all you are used to.
You really underestimate what it takes to make a good multiplayer that stands the test of time. Maps, map design, weapon drops, balancing, preventing cheap tactics from being abused and promoting a sense of a fair yet challenging experience. Anything goes wrong and the community collapses. The idea is that it creates a successful continuous gameplay loop that can exist long after the campaign is done. You got to give props to games that are still being played today compared to other games that are now collecting dust and whose sole purpose is to be bragged about online. I think Gears 5 is a fantastic campaign. So much detail, coop, and all the bells and whistles of a AAA game. And it has a full scale multiplayer suite. With many updates over the last year. All free. You can downplay the effort it takes to make everything but point stands that it’s extra effort that should entitle them to compensation. Again it’s optional, cosmetic, and not pay to win. It’s done right. |
Sure sales, because since Sony is not making MP games (let's pretend here, because we know that isn't true) then only MS is doing them? He couldn't be playing MP games from 3rd parties if he liked those right? |
Do I mean all their games? Of course not. Just going by the best of the best list warz I tend to see. Bloodborne, Infamous SS, uncharted 4, God of War, Horizon ZD, Spiderman, LOU 2 (which its announcement that the MP would be delayed was met with a collective “meh”), and GoT which has some kind of coop MP that didn’t make the launch. Let’s drop the act and actually acknowledge the actual difference between Xbox and PS first party games regarding MP. Point being, you simply can’t compare a single player only game with a single player/MP game, especially one with persistent content updates. OP argues it takes less manpower to make updates, and while true, the amount of work the team does post launch entitles compensation. The idea is to do it right. Gears 5, Sea of Thieves... all cosmetic, optional, non pay to win. NM Game Pass largely nullifies the upfront costs day 1. |
@boldedNo it doesn't. That post launch work costs next to nothing. That's what the MS defenders in this thread don't get. The idea that continual support of an online multiplayer mode costs serious money to make is as laughable as the idea that maintaining Xbox Live or PS Network costs serious money to make. The fact of the matter is that XBL/PSN don't cost much of anything, and should be free. Everybody knows that. But 15 years ago when XBL, and PSN were relatively new nobody really questioned that monthly online fee. Why? Because people didn't know enough about online networks to know that it costs next to nothing. Now, here in 2020, people simply don't understand that making new skins, new maps, and new weapons for an online multiplayer game don't cost much to do.
Monster Hunter World has free updates, because it costs next to nothing to do. Animal Crossing has free updates because it costs next to nothing to do. GoT has free updates because it costs next to nothing to do.
Cosmetic stuff is completely free in games like Spider-Man, GoT, Odyssey, BotW, etc. Charging money for cosmetic stuff, in a game you already bought, is a rip off.
You are right that Gamepass largely nullifies the upfront costs. The problem is that in order to get the full experience you need to spend much more than the average $60 game price, in MTX.
LudicrousSpeed said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
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. |
Maybe you just don't understand how business works? I don't know, seems like it. Also just like all your other hot takes in this thread, this one isn't well thought through and paints every situation with the same brush. Cosmetics costing money gets shit on even in GaaS all the time, too. It all depends on how the game is designed. Look at Evolve, for example. $60 game with a day one season pass and a day one store loaded with expensive cosmetics while the base game had, IIRC, two skins to unlock for each character. Gamers rejected it, game crashed and burned. There are plenty of other games that give you plenty of skins and also let you unlock more and also let you buy others. Those are the types of situations where no one cares, because the MTX are all cosmetic. Also thanks to the amount of money these publishers are making off of cosmetics and stuff, a vast majority have abandoned charging for map packs, etc, another big positive for gamers. |
Map packs were free in Left 4 Dead. They should be free now. MTX or no MTX. |
No thanks, I'd rather not have some draconian format that every video game must abide by. Hey games used to cost $90, I guess they all should now. |
TIL a making a company give away things that cost next to nothing to make for free is draconian. Giving that extra content away for free often drives sales of the game. Animal Crossing will likely sell 40+ million units, because of all the free updates it gives out. GoT will probably hit 20 million units sold thanks to it's free updates. There's nothing draconian about it. These guys are getting paid. I promise.
