I haven’t seen a single developer that thinks the current price of a game is high enough. They always cite how much it costs to make the game as the reason why they should be more expensive to buy.
And yet… Hollywood spends about the same to make a blockbuster film and movie tickets aren’t $70 nor do people in the film industry say they should be higher.
Also…like…who needs an ultra realistic videogame? Cel shading and other techniques usually age better anyways. I want games to be fun first and foremost. Eye candy is just candy without substance.
Some games like Elite Dangerous benefit from ultra realistic, but I’d hardly call that a mass market game, it’s more for simming.
The Coors Light of shooters could probably be cel shaded and be just as fun in 2024 as the next release 9-12 months later. And they could save a lot of overhead costs.
The Coors Light of shooters could probably be cel shaded and be just as fun in 2024 as the next release 9-12 months later. And they could save a lot of overhead costs.
The first is XIII (Gamecube), the second is Metal of Honor: Rising Sun (PS2). Both were released in 2003. I’d definitely say XIII holds up better visually.
They always cite how much it costs to make the game as the reason why they should be more expensive to buy.
They’re not wrong, but the audience just isn’t swallowing higher upfront prices. The only way they’re squeezing more out is with DLC, battle passes, mtx etc. which only work in specific types of games that have already saturated the market. It’s kind of an impossible situation atm.
It’s alright so far. It’s very barebones and there’s a decent number of bugs and glitches but nothing gambreaking for me so far but overall the game has a very good solid base to it and every sign it’ll be very good when done.
@nanoUFO I’m still not used to new games costing $70 USD yet since I buy most of my games used. In my head, $70 games are still the “Deluxe Editions”. If someone released a $100 game, I’d probably think of it as the “Super Deluxe Edition” and wait for it to be $60.
I pretty much exclusively play and buy indie games nowadays but in Canada it’s around $80 to $90 for new games not including tax. Don’t think any AAA game would draw me for that kind of price. I could get selaco, crow country and probably world of goo 2 for that price.
Back in 1996 AAA games sold for $60 to $75. If we take the lowest price of $60 and adjust it for inflation, that would be $119 today. Computer games today are unrealistically cheap. And if you look at how much more effort goes into development, they’re pretty much free.
I think there is a bigger market for them now though. What was the most popular video game in the 90s and how many copies sold vs the biggest games now? And now with steam and other sevices you don’t even have to manufacture as many discs. Even freemium mobile games are making billions in revenue.
And yet they tend to be a worse experience, release before they are ready with DLC already ready to go, riddled with microtransactions and other awful issues. They aren’t worth more.
Back in 1996, the average computer cost $2-6k adjusted for inflation. Now they are also much more difficult and complex to make, are much more powerful, and cost less.
Yes, a bunch of effort has gone into development, but that development doesn’t disappear after the game is done. And now we have free, open source game engines that can be filled with assets made in free, open source 3d modeling software, using free, open source high level programming languages. A little bit of learning and the average person could make an early 2000s video game solo in a couple of weeks.
The game certainly has problems, but the lack of fast travel is demonstrably an intentional decision to encourage the style of gameplay they envision, not some lack of functionality. This is exactly what mods are for.
That’s almost correct. The microtransaction is not a ferrystone (the fast-travel consumable). It is a portcrystal (a one-time additional fast travel location). You cannot buy ferrystones with real money.
Ferrystones are found or purchased rarely. It’s a clearly intentional decision to force you to explore the world on foot and weigh whether the current danger is bad enough to use a precious ferrystone to get home or if you should try and push through.
That’s a lot fairer and makes a lot more sense than what I was imagining. Although I’m still a little wary of the devs designing a purposefully limited time-intensive system, and the publishers then dangling a paid solution in front of players. Even when it’s just a part of the solution.
It’s no wonder you were misinformed, there was tons of people sputing lies when the game released.
DD2 is a very correct successor to DD1, it captures the same feel and the gameplay just seems superior in every aspect. It’s true that most people experience dragon’s dogma with the dark arisen dlc, which gave you an eternal ferry stone and kind of defeats the purpose, but the vase game had nothing of the sort.
The fact that there’s paid port crystals isn’t that big of a deal tbh, I needed like 2 total (gate town and bakhbattal or whatever’s the name) and the game gives you 3. Running around killing stuff is the game, and the other user that said that thrybhsd to travel to harpe town 13 times… Harpe town has a chain quest but you can do it all straight, I went there 3 times total, and 1 was because I wanted to unlock a class/vocation and forgot the last time.
Considering all this, I don’t think the publishers offered a paid solution at all, because the solution is playing the game itself.
You can find port crystals around the map or via quests. There are also some fixed ones on the map.
You can place them anywhere… Outside I think? But maybe just anywhere.
Once you find/place them you can use a Ferrystone while outside to travel to any one you have placed. There is almost always at least one Ferrystone for sale in each town, and it will refresh after a few days when you buy it. It will cost 10,000 gold.
The number of port crystals you can place are limited (in the first game it was 8 or 9?). You can find roughly 5 per playthrough iirc. You can NewGame+ as many times as you want once far enough in the main quest (retaining most items, equipment, all vocation levels and experience…i imagine any vocation master skills too; generally just the quests and the world reset). I’m still on my first playthrough so haven’t tried.
But there are no issues finding Port crystals and buying / finding Ferrystones. You DO NOT NEED MTX. That headline was so overblown.
Except they failed terribly in making travelling fun. I had to go from Vernwoth to Harve over 15 times in my playthrough and it doesn’t even have an oxcart so its teleport or walking. If you walk there you have to fight 3-5 packs of goblins, a cyclops, 1-2 ogres, maybe a drake, a ton of lizards and some slimes. Every. Single. Time. Enemy density makes every travel by foot a chore and they respawn way too fast. Nothing encourages that playstyle, even if they say so otherwise, either you run from every fight which sucks or you make a 10min stroll into a 1hr mess of a combat and end up being extremely overlevelled, further ruining the fun of the game. DD:DA also had a focus on travel but still gave you the eternal ferrystone, So it is in fact functionality lost, because we lost the ability to choose how we travel, how we enjoy the game.
Btw, in DD:DA I only used the eternal ferrystone for escort quests because they were terribly designed, for everything else I walked because it was actually super fun and often chill.
Yeah, I feel like they could have added more portcrystals and also, made ferrystones more common than it currently it. Travelling is genuinely a chore in this game. In DDDA, eternal ferrystone made things much easier, relatively speaking.
Seems to me like FerryStones just fall to the old too-good-to use system. By the time I started running around vermund I quickly got to double digits quantities of FerryStones and never fell to single digits comfortably using them.
You realize that sales come in varying magnitudes, right? Each individual decides what a game is worth to them, and if that means a 50% sale might have been sufficient for a $60 game, but that it’ll take a 65% sale to make an $80 game worth it, then so be it.
There’s a fundamental disconnect here and I’m not sure where it is, so let me just explain my position and maybe you can tell me where you’re confused.
Let’s take, for instance, a game which at full price is $40, a game that’s $60, and a game that’s $80.
In all of these cases, let’s assume I have decided that I am willing to pay $20.
In the first case, I will wait for a 50% sale, and buy the game.
In the second case, I will wait for a 66% sale, and buy the game.
In the third case, I will wait for a 75% sale, and buy the game.
If that sale magnitude doesn’t happen, I won’t buy the game. Similarly, if I’ve lost interest in the game by the time that sale magnitude happens, I won’t buy the game.
It’s very simple. Nobody is forcing you to pay $80 for a game, and nobody is forcing you to buy it just because it’s 50% off, if the 50% off price is not low enough that you feel it’s worth your money to buy it. It’s OK to just not ever buy a game.
And now increase the price a little more, until you never ever reach your 20 bucks target price point. Please just stop playing obtuse. You should know how percentages work.
Yes, because you know what? It is a solution, if everyone does it. If they started releasing games at $80, and everyone just said “Nope, sorry!” and refused to pay it, that practice would stop really fast. I have a huge game backlog, and there’s tons of great indie games with $10-$25 price tags that won’t be subject to this bullshit.
What’s your plan to discourage this practice, complain about it on Lemmy and then buy the games anyway? I’m sure that’ll be madly successful.
I can’t control what anyone else does, but I can control what I do, and I’m right there with the post I’m agreeing with: I’ll wait for a sale, and if that sale never comes, I won’t buy it. There’s no disagreement or contradiction there.
Very nice! I just picked up watch dogs and watch dogs 2 deluxe editions as a bundle for like $13 after tax.
I’m even eyeing the rdr2 sale on epic right nowcfor under 25.
There are so many good options that don’t look dated at all to me.
Honestly, crysis looked amazing on my 10 year old laptop. I kind of want to replay them again on my new one to see how much better everything looks on ultra.
I loved to bully the bad guys with the cop and gang calling feature in Watch Dogs 2.
I would just sit there and wait until the NPCs killed themselves. ;D
Have yet to play Watch Dogs 1.
Kind of have a track record of playing a series in reverse…
Gang wars were my jam while playing WD2. Cruising around the block scanning people for botnet recharges, and calling in reinforcements every time one side gets wiped out… Good times.
That’s a significant portion of the cost of a brand new console! That’s two weeks worth of electricity for my house! That’s 6 months worth of my mobile phone service! Jesus wept.
I’m not paying more than £40 for a video game, and at that price it had better be a GREAT game.
I mostly wait until they’re in the £20-30 range anyway, even if that means waiting for sales. I’m not in a rush, I’ve got plenty of other games I can play in the mean time after all.
Not OP, but also from the UK. I pay £8 per month for 5 gigs of internet traffic and unlimited everything else. Last month I used less than 1 gig… I can probably switch to a £6 tariff with just 2 gigs, but I use closer to 5 from time to time and don’t want to switch back and forth all the time. For £25 I can get unlimited traffic.
Sekiro still sell for 60 dollar. The industry figured out they can use scarcity in a form of limited time discount to encourage customer to make purchase, so there’s no need to lower the base price forever.
ign.com
Active