By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Cerebralbore101 on 21 November 2020
Edit Thread
LudicrousSpeed said:
DonFerrari said:
Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

And charging 10USD for a skin isn't it done right anyway, nor is making most games MTX gallore that are to be played for several years but that is besides the point.

Nullifying the upfront cost to milk and dime the users is exactly what Sony fanbase have been complaining and you and some others would say that concern isn't justifiable, so now you have to change that to fit your point?

Don, are you comparing the methods of forcing people to pay $10 upfront to optional $10 in game content? Because its always better to have the option than to straight out not have a choice.

Development structure is the one that will change.

And you do know why so many companies changed to f2p right? Because in the end they collect even more money for less cost and people accept much lower quality on f2p game. That is a path I don't intend to travel.

You don't intend to travel the path where your perceived value of any particular product isn't influenced by cost? I would bet you already travel that path and have for years, as have all of us. There's nothing wrong with accepting lower quality on a free to play title, because it doesn't cost you anything. In a similar fashion, I'm perfectly ok with my car not performing like a Ferrari, because I didn't have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for my car. If I buy a $20-30 game, I am less critical of it than I would be a $60 title. That's just how logic works. Of course the same logic applies to a f2p title.

But again all this worry and fear mongering over something that simply is not an issue, because we as gamers can police games ourselves, and have done so for generations. The f2p titles that come out and suck or are super scummy with their pricing, don't tend to last very long. The single player games that come out with monetization and excessive DLC, typically pay the price for it. Look at how spectacularly Avengers just flopped. Glorious. That's virtually everything this thread is bitching about and look what happened.

And you should probably stop referencing cerebral's guesses on the costs of game development and skins and developer salaries, etc. It's all pulled right from his anus. He's literally admitted his frame of reference are custom game modes in various titles. I am sure you have fiddled with Gran Turismo's track editor. Do you feel this makes you qualified to speak on how much DLC for Dirt 5 should cost? I highly doubt it.

Regarding changing money for time, so long as sales buying something in a competitive MP title doesn't give him an inherent advantage, why should any of us care? You go on to admit you play less MP titles, if I want to spend $100 a year buying skins in a MP title that I play and I put more time in than you put into all of your single player titles that cost multiple times my $100, what's wrong here?

I went to school for this stuff. No, I don't have a job in the field (can't be bothered to work 65-85 hours a week for 40K, in a city where cost of living is 50K a year). So no, I'm not pulling this stuff out of my anus.

Do you seriously think that a simple character model is so expensive to make that they need to charge $10 for it, to make a profit? By that logic a full game, which has 50 to 100 character models needs to be priced at $500 to $1000 retail in order to make a profit.

sales2099 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
sales2099 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

sales2099 said:

With Gears 5 or Sea of Thieves, you get the complete multiplayer experience. Same maps, same gameplay, all the modes. You are not required to buy anything to enhance gameplay. Me having a pink chrome shotgun in Gears 5 or a shiny gold sniper rifle skin in Sea of Thieves is NOT essential to my gameplay experience. It’s optional compensation for post launch support. You can dispute the effort it takes all you want, fact is people spend time on them, and the content is more sizeable then you think OP. It’s more then skins, it’s maps and modes, new areas, all of which require design, balancing and tweaks.

And I’ll say again we have Game Pass, which makes it increasingly smart to use instead of spending $70 upfront, unlike Sony. Game Pass is an essential part of this debate. 15 million users is no small number, which is likely to grow to 20 by years end, and a service that provides day 1 access to 1st party. 

As someone who plays Gears 5 and SoT, you know how much I actually spent on those games? About $10-15 for each game. On mtx that appealed to me that I felt why not since I gave these games so much of my time for practically nothing (given that I play more then enough GP to justify it)

The implications of this thread is clear, and to that end, until Sony can provide a enticing way to nullify the upfront $70 cost like Game Pass can, Xbox far and away wins on value. Not to mention so much unlockables can be done without spending anything, merely through just playing. 

That pink chrome shotgun or shiny gold sniper rifle is part of the game. In the case of those two weapons, they are literally 5 minute texture and material editor changes. And they are trying to charge you how much for them? Having multiple costumes in Spider-Man is also NOT essential to my gameplay experience. Neither is having multiple armors in GoW. You don't see those being taken out of the game and then charged a premium though do you?

Yes, people spend time on them. But you are seriously underestimating the time or money needed. $10 for a skin does not reflect the time or money needed to make said skin. They could charge $0.50 for a skin and still make a fantastic profit.

Yes, you spent $10-$15 on those games, but that's just your own anecdotal evidence. Most people spend far more than that over the course of a year. My co-worker for example has dumped $700 into the sims, over 7 years. I've spent over $200 on LoL crap in 3-4 years, before quitting the game for good. Tell me. Is the Sims worth $700? Is LoL worth $200?

I get your argument though. You are saying that Gamepass makes MS games virtually free to play. The problem is that to get the full experience you need to spend far more than the simple $70 that Sony is asking for. How much would it cost to get every skin, in Gears 5? I bet it's well over $100, just for all the character skins. And in the vast majority of Sony games all the skins are included free. So if you include the full package a Sony game is $70 and that's it. A MS game is $10 a month + over $100 and growing. Or worse, if you feel like actually owning the game it's $70 + $100 and growing. When including the full game, Sony games are far and away a better value. Not to mention that Sony games frequently go on sale for $40, and then $20.


Where we fundamentally disagree is how much time people can spend making post launch content. If skins was all there was to it, you may have a point. But in SoT and Gears 5 it’s is actual content. But in general you silly can’t compare single player games and single player games with multiplayer. You just can’t. 

If you have problems with the Sims or LoL, take it up with the devs. They aren’t Xbox devs. 

Your mistake is assuming people would want everything for sale. Most people just get the MTX that appeal to them and stop. I don’t need every skin and color to get the “full experience”. I have all the maps and content just like everybody else. That’s the full experience, in the gameplay. 

Overall I played these games, long after you finished your one-and-done games, and paid a fraction of what you paid. Sorry but until Sony does the day 1 policy of Game Pass, they simply don’t have the value. 

SOT? Yes, I agree with that. SOT is multiplayer, but it's more like an MMO, so it makes sense for Rare to have spend a bunch of time making new content for it. The extra stuff in SOT is basically just single player content with the added ability to be able to play with friends. Gears 5? No. Making maps and skins, and game modes is trivial compared to making single player content.

Right. I assumed that somebody would only want all the multiplayer skins that currently appear in Gears 5. There's more buyable stuff than that in Gears 5 though. And they keep adding more skins and MTX all the time. I actually don't know how much it would cost to get all the stuff in Gears 5. That $100+ dollars was a lowball estimate. Even if most people were to only buy three skins a year it would still be a ripoff.

The one and done rhetoric is laughable. That's youtube level console warz rhetoric. Single player games offer unique experiences, and value your time. These games that you say you've played forever, are games you've played forever, because they are designed to waste the player's time. They incorporate Artificial Game Lengtheners. They are intentionally designed to get you compelled to play, whether you are having a good time or not.

Anybody can spend forever playing Monopoly with friends. That doesn't mean that a 10 hour single player board game isn't as valuable. To be honest something like that would be far more valuable than Monopoly. I have absolutely no wish to play monopoly. But if there was a 10 hour long board game that was single player, and was like a DnD campaign where you were both the dungeonmaster, and the player? I'd be all like "SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY" meme with that.

Gears 5 has added considerable number of maps since launch, all free. Instead of paying $10 for map packs (an outdated practice due to fracturing the player base), the MTX make up for it. 

It’s all about doing it right. Content is free, optional cosmetics are payable, but in many cases grindable. 

It’s completely subjective in regards to a game you play for 80 hours via MP vs a campaign only game. I get that. But the core argument here is that you believe developers who keep games alive for years after launch don’t deserve compensation. You can argue what they put out on a case by case basis, but work it still is. 

Plus you must include the Game Pass model in what MS does. It’s night and day with Sony, who is still doing old traditions. More and more Xbox games are being played, but not necessarily bought. So you therefore can’t hold Xbox to the same standard. 

Map packs should be free. They would get compensation by selling extra copies of the game, or hitting such a large pool of Gamepass subs that they can fund all their games easily. Imagine Gamepass hitting 100,000,000 subs at $15 a month. Sure, Gamepass isn't profitable right now. It's probably not going to be profitable for 5-10 years. But once they finally do (if they ever) get 100,000,000 subs, the amount of money rolling in is going to dwarf individual game development costs. Think of it this way. If I make a movie with a budget of $100,000,000, then I need to sell 7 million box office tickets at $15 a pop to make my money back. But what if I have 100,000,000 people subbed to my streaming channel? Well then I just need to let a single month of that $10 to $15 a month subscription service roll in and I've made my money back x10-15. A single month of subs would fund my hypothetical movie, and ten to fifteen movies like it.

This is the power of spreading out your costs among a ton of customers.

I will hold Xbox to the same standard, because they are still putting their games for sale at retail. The moment they pull all their games from Steam/XBoxStore/Epic/WindowsStore, I'll change the standard I hold them to.

To get a full and complete 1st party Xbox game you need to spend well over $100 in MTX. On top of that the gameplay is mediocre at best, because they've put a whole bunch of grinding into the game just to entice you to spend money on MTX. Sure, they're offering their 1st party games for free on Gamepass, but over the long term most people are going to spend far more on MTX, than they would have spent on a single purchase.


Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 22 November 2020