shikamaru317 said:
Dulfite said:
DragonRouge said:
JuliusHackebeil said:
Why would I buy a ps5 than? I bought into the promise of an ssd that would make completely new game design possible. No long, winding corridors, no bland nothing in between interesting stuff that has to be loaded in, etc. If I have a 10+ tflop + super fast ssd machine to play games that run perfectly fine on something that will be 10 years old after those 3 years are over, I might aswell buy the ps5 in 3 years.Can't they see how this is bad in many consumers eyes? I think it is obvious that no one would be hurt if they leave the ps4 behind after Horizon 2. With this they will just hurt ps5 sales. After a long ps4 generation people are ready to buy new tech. Don't give them less reason to want this. |
There, you just cracked the code for smart gaming. No game or system is worth buying at launch price. If more people where patient, maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't have $70 games now. |
And then all those developers experiencing crunch time would have their bonuses and salary slashed, many would lose their jobs and those remaining would have even more work consolidated into their day to day workload. When you hurt a business' finances, the billionaires aren't the ones suffering. It's the working class that suffers. In this case, even at $70, games aren't making what they made back in the 80's (if you count inflation) and are certainly more proportionally expensive to develop now. So if we were to all do as you suggest, we'd either have an overstressed, shrinking, underpaid workforce making games compared to what we have now, or games will start seeing significantly lower budgets and won't be nearly as grand as we expect them to be. Which of those two options would you pick so that you can save that extra $10-20 (or whatever you deem a reasonable price) per game? Personally, I wish games would become more expensive so that anyone in software development can be more properly compensated for their high-demand, crunch-time-style jobs. |
I just hope that your average grunt developers will actually see a pay raise thanks to the increase to $70/80 euros. Sadly, I suspect that the extra money will all go to line the already fat wallets of the executives, bastards like Bobby Kotick over at Activision, who gets paid 319x more than the average Activision game developer gets paid. AAA game development seems like one of the lowest paid fields that typically requires 4 years of college, only a handful of other college degree requiring professions like teachers seem to get paid less than AAA game developers. Add on to that crunch as well, which in some cases is non-paid overtime, and I can't help but feel bad for AAA developers. |
I don't think I'd go that far for annual salary. Per hour? Yeah I could see that. But that's because of crunch time.
I heard once from a guy in carpentry (like 30 years of experience) that he researched it and learned around 97% of college graduates make less than people in trade skill jobs (welders, boilermakers, carpenters, etc.).
A ton of professions that require college degrees make less than developers. Marketing, business, communications majors probably on average make considerably less than developers. Teachers do get shafted though, I know because I was one for 4 years. Now everytime I look at teaching openings I look at the pay and it makes me run far away (and I worked for one of the best paying school districts in my states before I quit and it still pays nothing compared to what I will be making in a few years with my new career). As much as I have a passion for teaching, I have a greater passion for providing for my family and getting into a situation where my wife doesn't have to work as much.
