Friday Update - Perfect 10

    • Ossuary wrote:

      Companies like EA and Activision have also done a really good job of brainwashing people into believing costs are high with all their rhetoric so they can hide their actual clients' (the investors) profits inside those "very high" costs. It's not the development that costs so much, it's the corporate greed.
      That's not entirely fair. Many SNES games were made with teams of 20-30 people working over a year or so. Game dev teams now number in the thousands with years of work required on a single title(sometimes several years). You can't claim to me that that doesn't increase the cost of the production.

      Have you WATCHED the credits of a modern game? God of War's credits listing is literally 31 minutes long start to finish. Spider-Man's took ~20.

      I'm not saying that they aren't exaggerating, I know they absolutely are, but claiming that 'costs aren't higher' is silly. Claiming that making these games DOESN'T cost an enormous sum of money is also silly.
      Gamer. Streamer. Photographer. Writer. Anime Lover. Possessor of Stuffed Animals.

      Also... I'm terrible at this game.
    • A SNES game was also considered a success if it sold a million copies. Hell, some were thrilled to clear 200K, back in the day. The market is bigger now. God of War sold over 10 million copies. That's 600 million dollars, MINIMUM. The market is bigger, so the profit is bigger. That affords a larger team.

      Also, God of War is a special case and a bad example. They're an internal Sony studio, so they can AFFORD to throw a lot of manpower at the goal of making a beautiful and deep game - they have a lot of publisher money to work with. You'll notice that GoW had zero scummy, exploitative microtransactions to milk people, because Cory and the team were looking to make a statement and a love letter to gaming.

      Look at a Ubisoft game, on the other hand. They've got hundreds of employees too, and sell products on a similar (not quite as high) scale. But their games are fucking BLOATED with bullshit monetization schemes. Because their corporate overlords are greedy. They don't want to make an amazing game, they aren't content to make a lot of money, they want to make ALL the money. Nothing less will do.

      Some companies make games to make amazing games, and make money doing it. Other companies just want to make as much money as they possibly can, and don't give two shits whether or not the games they make are actually any good. See the difference?
      --ossuary

      "Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none."
      - Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well
    • Ossuary wrote:

      A SNES game was also considered a success if it sold a million copies. Hell, some were thrilled to clear 200K, back in the day. The market is bigger now. God of War sold over 10 million copies. That's 600 million dollars, MINIMUM. The market is bigger, so the profit is bigger. That affords a larger team.

      Also, God of War is a special case and a bad example. They're an internal Sony studio, so they can AFFORD to throw a lot of manpower at the goal of making a beautiful and deep game - they have a lot of publisher money to work with. You'll notice that GoW had zero scummy, exploitative microtransactions to milk people, because Cory and the team were looking to make a statement and a love letter to gaming.

      Look at a Ubisoft game, on the other hand. They've got hundreds of employees too, and sell products on a similar (not quite as high) scale. But their games are fucking BLOATED with bullshit monetization schemes. Because their corporate overlords are greedy. They don't want to make an amazing game, they aren't content to make a lot of money, they want to make ALL the money. Nothing less will do.

      Some companies make games to make amazing games, and make money doing it. Other companies just want to make as much money as they possibly can, and don't give two shits whether or not the games they make are actually any good. See the difference?
      You can't just take [copies sold] x $60 unless every copy was sold directly by the developing studio. Even if the selling platform and studio are both Sony entities, the revenue would be classified differently for the "studio share."

      That said, I 100% agree with your point. These enormous companies decry their struggles, then post record profits. The unfortunate reality is that I don't think it really even matters what they say or how they justify things - games like CoD and FIFA will get their numbers no matter what. For so many millions of players it's as simple as "I want this thing, it costs $x, I pay $x, I have thing." They never think about wallet voting or long term effects.
    • It's an oversimplification, sure, but it gets the point across. And yeah, I agree with you, the real problem is the dudebros don't care and they keep buying these fucking awful cashgrab not-quite-games every single year. Good luck getting through to them, though. ;)
      --ossuary

      "Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none."
      - Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well
    • Ossuary wrote:

      It's an oversimplification, sure, but it gets the point across. And yeah, I agree with you, the real problem is the dudebros don't care and they keep buying these fucking awful cashgrab not-quite-games every single year. Good luck getting through to them, though. ;)
      I learned this embarrassingly late. I sometimes go through my old games (we are talking PS2 era CD-ROM and console games, still factory sealed, because must have thing even if no time when you're young and stupid) and ponder: "What the fuck was I thinking?" So I know from experience that these people need to develop their brain some more before they can even contemplate that they might be buying shit.

      AceBladewing wrote:

      To be fair, even at a $60 price tag, games provide such a high amount of entertainment hours that it's still worth buying even if it's overpriced compared to the development cost. It's still exponentially more economic than most other hobbies.
      I wish more people appreciated this. Take a 60-dollar game. Let's say you play it for 20 hours, which would probably be criticized for being way too short. That is 3 dollars per hour of entertainment. What the hell can you do equally cheap? I recently tried climbing for the first time for example. Yeah, 17 dollars for one hour. Wtf? I am super careful what games I buy for full price these days, because they really need to be good. But if they are, they are easily worth the price. And I never play games twice either, so they have no New Game+ value for me.

      For me, games are best when they last about 10 - 15 hours. Anything over that and repetition is bound to start gnawing on the entertainment. Naturally there are exceptions when dealing with lifestyle games like Civ VI or TCGs. I try to limit playing those, as you are basically just burning time. If someone is yelling that a game must last for 300 hours, they simply do not have a life or have way too much free time. I hate Skyrim for being so goddamn long, because I have yet to finish it. I have about 320 hours on it now. I bought it full price. That is a whopping 0.1875 dollars per hour.
    • Well, there's a whole separate value calculation, and it's different for each person, and time is only one factor. Sure, some games last "100 hours," but is that time actually valuable? That depends heavily on the quality and what you want to get out of it. Some people really fucking love running around shooting each other over and over again, with no actual end or advancement to it. For those people, games like CS:GO are an enormous value for the price, even if you lay out some money for cosmetic goodies to feel "special" or show off while you're playing. To others, they want experiences, so paying $50 an hour (or whatever) to go ziplining or bungie jumping or something is worth even that high cost, because it's something not very many people get to experience.

      Other gamers have plenty of money but not a lot of time, so they prefer tighter experiences with a concrete story that don't waste their limited time, so they might prefer a shorter RPG or a story-driven action game like your Uncharteds... an open world exploration game would be terrible to gamers like that. It all comes down to balancing quality and quantity for a budget you can live with. Not every game has to be for every type of player... I think a lot of companies end up making poorer products overall by losing sight of that, and aiming for mass appeal or pure dollars per hour calculations.

      Of course, some games will just be worth it no matter what. Look at The Witcher... fucking hell if I didn't love every minute of the 140+ hours I put into that game and its expansions. WELL worth the full cost day one price tag, and a complete steal if you picked up the game of the year edition with everything included for $60. Companies like that, that give you value for dollar AND an amazing product to boot, they'll always get my trust and my money next time around. God forbid more companies did that instead of trying to trick people and tweak their addiction centers with microtransactions and fucking lootboxes.
      --ossuary

      "Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none."
      - Shakespeare, All's Well That Ends Well