By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - $60 Games are getting smaller while getting more and more DLC.....

forevercloud3000 on 19 February 2015
LudicrousSpeed said:
It's silly to compare them. For example I played Skyrim for over 100 hours on PS3 and got the platinum. And I still spent almost five times as much time on Titanfall. I'm already at 40 hours or so with Evolve, more than I got out of GTA V, and probably right at what I have spent with Last of Us.

Games like Evolve and Titanfall are the complete package. It just might not be a package that appeals to you :)

I guess I do not value Multiplayer nearly as much as everyone else. I dabble in it to extend a game's length but my meat and potatos is always the campaign. This stems from the fact I prefer Coop experiences over Competitive ones anyday. So Monster Hunter-esque evironments do more for me than say COD.

Nevertheless, a game that is so restricted with how you play(basically one game mode) feels like a massive shortcoming to me. Would Titanfall not be  a much more versatile game if it had singleplayer?



      

      

      

Greatness Awaits

PSN:Forevercloud (looking for Soul Sacrifice Partners!!!)

Around the Network
Euphoria14 on 19 February 2015
Arcturus said:
forevercloud3000 said:

Pre 2000s- Games like FFVII are everywhere, filled to the brim with content for a standard price (I think it was $40 then) You had your story which was about 40 hrs, your side stories, another 20, your distractions and unlockables, an extra 20hrs give or take your dedication. We had games like Crash bandicoot which offered levels upon levels of challenge and just when you thought you beat the game.........BAM unlocked a whole new area to play, probably put in about 80hrs in to this game too.

You're remembering a few Pre 2000s games that were lengthy, but you're forgetting that there were plenty of games, especially in the NES and SNES era, that could be finished in an hour or two. And these games were expensive too, some of them costing $70+ in 1990. That would be like spending $120 today for a single game.

This.

 

People constantly complaining about game length obviously have not been gamers back in the 80's and 90's.



iPhone = Great gaming device. Don't agree? Who cares, because you're wrong.

Currently playing:

Final Fantasy VI (iOS), Final Fantasy: Record Keeper (iOS) & Dragon Quest V (iOS)     

    

Got a retro room? Post it here!

Neodegenerate on 19 February 2015

Games not changing in price despite production costs going up over the years immediately kills this argument for me. DLC is a necessary evil to keep the profits flowing and the base price low for a lot of these companies/studios.



forevercloud3000 on 19 February 2015
JazzB1987 said:
forevercloud3000 said:

So here is a trend that I need to die in a firey car crash, games are losing all sense of longevity and instead rely on cheap parlor tricks to net you before you realize you just bought air.

Pre 2000s- Games like FFVII are everywhere, filled to the brim with content for a standard price (I think it was $40 then) You had your story which was about 40 hrs, your side stories, another 20, your distractions and unlockables, an extra 20hrs give or take your dedication. We had games like Crash bandicoot which offered levels upon levels of challenge and just when you thought you beat the game.........BAM unlocked a whole new area to play, probably put in about 80hrs in to this game too.

Now- Lucky to get anything outside of the bare minimum for what is now $20 more standardly. Then Developers have the audacity to still have their hand out for even more money vie DLC which was suppose to act as Expansion packs not micro transaction penny penching.

Who is Getting it WRONG!!!

Titanfall is only online which I always think is a lesser package because my enjoyment on it is dependant upon other people choosing to play the same game at the same time as me.....hate this practice. It is also why I could not do games like Warhawk.

Ryse and The Order, spent half a decade on creating Technologic Porn which sums up to about 6hr campaigns with no multiplayer(not Ryse), distractions, or anything to draw out longevity.

Evolve, which is basically a game you paid to play but get charged like its a F2P.

 

Who is Getting it RIGHT!!!!

Skyrim, full package of hours and hours of content to play in. And when the DLC hit.....it was actually EXPANSIVE and not content withheld simply to gimp original package.

TLOU- a exemplary game of our time. It has a 15hr main story that is loaded with replay value to take in missed interactions, collectibles, etc. AND has multiplayer.

GTAV- 3 campaigns really, a sandbox of attractions, multiplayer, and DLC to keep you coming back.

 

Not every game has to be open world but can we at least get a complete package anymore??? I guess we have just become really spoiled by games lasting more than.... idk 20hrs from yesteryear, now Graphics has caused many games to sacrifice substance for flare.

Talking about DLC and complete games.

Ignoring Nintendo.   WHAAT?


Not ignoring Ninty, we all know they make highly refined and polished products which usually have great replay value. I just grabbed at a few broader based ones that I have played/know of personally.



      

      

      

Greatness Awaits

PSN:Forevercloud (looking for Soul Sacrifice Partners!!!)

ktay95 on 19 February 2015
Neodegenerate said:
Games not changing in price despite production costs going up over the years immediately kills this argument for me. DLC is a necessary evil to keep the profits flowing and the base price low for a lot of these companies/studios.

You dont think thats the issue then??



Around the Network
forevercloud3000 on 19 February 2015
Neodegenerate said:
Games not changing in price despite production costs going up over the years immediately kills this argument for me. DLC is a necessary evil to keep the profits flowing and the base price low for a lot of these companies/studios.

as a aspiring game developer who has some more than basic knowledge about how games are funded....this is feels like drivel big publishers feed to the public to justify trying to triple profits.



      

      

      

Greatness Awaits

PSN:Forevercloud (looking for Soul Sacrifice Partners!!!)

JazzB1987 on 19 February 2015
ktay95 said:
Neodegenerate said:
Games not changing in price despite production costs going up over the years immediately kills this argument for me. DLC is a necessary evil to keep the profits flowing and the base price low for a lot of these companies/studios.

You dont think thats the issue then??


I agree with you  thats exactly the issue.

Instead of pumping billions into making a single rock have 1m instead of 750k polygons which is just a waste of money they could save millions by NOT focusing on nonsense.

I dont mind if they make realistic looking games as long as thats just a side effect of the game production. Focusing in visuals is just stupid and when you have several teams in different countries working on the same game without real coordination and 50% of the people idling because they have nothing to do then you get games that NEED to sell 10m copies at 60 bucks or they are a failure....
(TombRaider 2013 was a failure until the new gen versions hit.  3.4 million copies of Tomb Raider have been sold in its first month! How can you fail by selling 3.4m copies?!?!?!)

Meanwhile japanese games (obviously not looking as good for the most part) but still being fun in the game department can sell 200k and the studio survives....

I remember one of the best looking games  FARCRY1 on PC was made by what? 10 people? (its not the best game obviously but it shows if you  have PROS that work coordinated you dont need to waste so much money to achive similar results as others with 10x the workworce,)



celador on 19 February 2015

Older games were far shorter content wise than modern games on average.

They only felt longer because many prolonged the experience because of certain design choices, like cheap deaths



Neodegenerate on 19 February 2015
ktay95 said:
Neodegenerate said:
Games not changing in price despite production costs going up over the years immediately kills this argument for me. DLC is a necessary evil to keep the profits flowing and the base price low for a lot of these companies/studios.

You dont think thats the issue then??

Sure that is an issue.  However, with the cost of production rising so should the cost of the item.  That is natural.  In the gaming industry that doesn't happen.  Instead, what the devs do is put out DLC to help supplement the dollars they need to continue meeting their goals and in some cases just stay in business.  Majority of people won't stand for a baseline increase from $60 to $70 per game.  They also complain when the additional content they want is priced at $10 instead.  

I can also guarantee that if we were still seeing 40 hour games for $60 that didn't have graphical advancement we have seen you would have people complaining that no one is pushing the envelope and trying to advance the medium.  The true issue is the fact that gamers want all the upsides of technological advancement with none of the downsides of it.  They want better things for cheaper costs.



vivster on 19 February 2015

Aren't that just symptoms of games being more expensive to make?



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.