By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
curl-6 on 12 March 2024
Edit Thread
Chrkeller said:
curl-6 said:

Thing is, games really don't need to cost so much to make in the first place.

Some of the biggest games of recent years have moderate budgets, and the mass market has shown over and over again with its embrace of games like Minecraft and systems like the Switch that they really don't need everything to have the latest greatest graphics.
Heck, the success of the Switch version of Hogwarts shows that even that game didn't rely on AAA visuals to sell. It's only a vocal minority who demand that every game have super high end production values.

Instead of bleeding customers dry with shitty practises, publishers need to get their excessive spending under control. There's no reason why a $70 single player game without predatory monetization can't be profitable. If devs still can't profit at that price, then frankly it's a skill issue.

And I staunchly think developers should cut the fluff before going after graphics.  I'm playing zero dawn and it has a ton of irrelevant collectibles.  The side quests in FF7 Remake are boring and irrelevant.  Developers need to stop trying to make every game 40+ hours.  RE remakes sold just fine at 10 to 20 hours.  

As for Hogwarts, the game grossed over a billion and cost 150 million....  I have no idea what WB is complaining about.  

And of course drop exclusives.  Support PC day 1.  

That too, this obsession with making everything a 50+ hour extravaganza is needless and stupid.

There's a place for games with amazing graphics, and for huge long games, but not every major game needs to be both. Publishers have nobody but themselves to blame for overspending on every damn game then crying when they don't make enough profit.

Look at Nintendo, most of their games can be beaten in under 10 hours, and none of them have AAA production value, yet they sell tens of millions.