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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - MS CFO Tim Stuart defends throwing MTX into $70 games.

Oh ok, so because I made some maps for Unreal Tournament or TimeSplitters, I know how long it takes to make fully fledged MP maps for real games and how much they cost to make, lol. Makes sense. I’ve also used the create a track feature in various racers, I am now an expert in racing game development.

No one in gaming is charging $10 for an apple because no one wants a $10 apple, unless maybe it’s an Apple apple :)Again, we have plenty of cases of devs/pubs over charging for cosmetics and it ruining their game. There’s no need for any of us to get worked up over it. Life finds a way. And MS games all get plenty of free updates, too. In fact in today’s market, is there literally a single game that doesn’t get free updates? Free substantial updates are not nearly as common as paid premium updates though. Here’s where you list a bunch of games that got free updates that you consider substantial and here’s where I reply with an even longer list of premium updates. I’m not going to bother continuing, good luck on your crusade against logical business.



Around the Network

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. 

Last edited by sales2099 - on 19 November 2020

LudicrousSpeed said:

Oh ok, so because I made some maps for Unreal Tournament or TimeSplitters, I know how long it takes to make fully fledged MP maps for real games and how much they cost to make, lol. Makes sense. I’ve also used the create a track feature in various racers, I am now an expert in racing game development.

No one in gaming is charging $10 for an apple because no one wants a $10 apple, unless maybe it’s an Apple apple :)Again, we have plenty of cases of devs/pubs over charging for cosmetics and it ruining their game. There’s no need for any of us to get worked up over it. Life finds a way. And MS games all get plenty of free updates, too. In fact in today’s market, is there literally a single game that doesn’t get free updates? Free substantial updates are not nearly as common as paid premium updates though. Here’s where you list a bunch of games that got free updates that you consider substantial and here’s where I reply with an even longer list of premium updates. I’m not going to bother continuing, good luck on your crusade against logical business.

Actually, yes. Timesplitters 2 is a great example of how pre-existing assets can be slapped together to make a new map. Modern game development is a little more complicated, but for the most part it's a great example. If you want to learn more, download Unity, and take the prefabs tutorial.

I was talking about a grocery story charging $10 for an apple, which would be an insane price gouge. These companies are trying to charge $10 for a skin in a game that already costs $70. Like I said before, 4,000% profit margins are not logical. Go ahead and list your games with premium updates then.

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.




The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

 

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. 



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.

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 20 November 2020

The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

 

Around the Network
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. 



sales2099 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

sales2099 said:

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. 

No need to push a lie.

He said the content that is put on the MTX doesn't cost nearly as much as how they charge for, that when they charge 10 for a skin they are having like 4000% profit margin, and you seem to defend it. He isn't saying a company can't be profitable or keep supporting.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
sales2099 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

sales2099 said:

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. 

No need to push a lie.

He said the content that is put on the MTX doesn't cost nearly as much as how they charge for, that when they charge 10 for a skin they are having like 4000% profit margin, and you seem to defend it. He isn't saying a company can't be profitable or keep supporting.

$10 map packs aren’t a thing anymore. The maps are given for free. This is a better system. I experienced what it was like to not play the map packs I bought due to fracturing. I support doing mtx the right way, they aren’t inherently evil. 

And I can’t stress this enough, MS is putting everything they have into growing GP, which nullifies the upfront cost. And therefore you can’t directly compare their business model to Sony. 



sales2099 said:
DonFerrari said:
sales2099 said:

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. 

No need to push a lie.

He said the content that is put on the MTX doesn't cost nearly as much as how they charge for, that when they charge 10 for a skin they are having like 4000% profit margin, and you seem to defend it. He isn't saying a company can't be profitable or keep supporting.

$10 map packs aren’t a thing anymore. The maps are given for free. This is a better system. I experienced what it was like to not play the map packs I bought due to fracturing. I support doing mtx the right way, they aren’t inherently evil. 

And I can’t stress this enough, MS is putting everything they have into growing GP, which nullifies the upfront cost. And therefore you can’t directly compare their business model to Sony. 

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?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

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.