Games are never priced that variably. New AAA games are pretty much universally $60.
EA Needs to F*** off and die
- Thread starter HowDroll
- Start date
Games are never priced that variably. New AAA games are pretty much universally $60.
Necronic
Staff member
I think the reality is more like this (since it's prevalent in the film and TV industry)
Manager: "Ok guys, looks like we're getting close to the finish line. Now, we cut a number of pieces out of the game during development due to cost over-runs, and I know you guys are sad and in some cases pissed (Jerry) that some of your work is being wasted like this, but I have some good news.
"Current estimates for sales are looking good and the board wants to double down on this game. They have authorized an additional million dollars for development of some DLC that will come out on launch. All those pieces that you guys got halfway through making but I made you stop? Now's your chance to get them in the game. There's going to be plenty of overtime opportunities in the next months. Grab your bootstraps, and get moving men, today is a good day to dev!
"Jerry I will need to see you in my office immediately"
Added at: 20:26
I'll be honest, I would like to live there as well.
Manager: "Ok guys, looks like we're getting close to the finish line. Now, we cut a number of pieces out of the game during development due to cost over-runs, and I know you guys are sad and in some cases pissed (Jerry) that some of your work is being wasted like this, but I have some good news.
"Current estimates for sales are looking good and the board wants to double down on this game. They have authorized an additional million dollars for development of some DLC that will come out on launch. All those pieces that you guys got halfway through making but I made you stop? Now's your chance to get them in the game. There's going to be plenty of overtime opportunities in the next months. Grab your bootstraps, and get moving men, today is a good day to dev!
"Jerry I will need to see you in my office immediately"
Added at: 20:26
Yeah, after I wrote that I realized that the Price Point wasn't a variable in that first equation (at least not with AAA). But it doesn't change the argument (or the other variables). You guys are operatign in a system of logic where cost is not influenced by labor.
I'll be honest, I would like to live there as well.
What you have there are good examples of good and bad DLC development, but either one could be on-disk.
This is what I'm getting at. This is why I was stressing the difference between RC and RTM/Gold Master before. Because of the length of time console release certification takes, it's perfectly reasonable for a company to complete DLC (especially DLC they planned on paper in the first place) before something streets. And since DLC is rarely new source code, it's easy to add to the Gold Master right before it goes out.
In other words, GB and others were right before: consoles are ruining the game industry. I fully retract any statement I may have made to the contrary.
In my area, the theater listings advertised which ending you would get.
Hey, I expect my game not to suck right out of the box. I shouldn't have to pay extra to move that needle.
--Patrick
Ahem. Anyway.
Something occurred to me. Would you guys feel better if games were $70 but always included everything the devs wanted the game to include? No DLC, day 1 or otherwise, just one really complete game, but with a higher price point for everyone, to cover any extra development costs.
And what is the guarantee of content coming later?
Ahem. Anyway.
Something occurred to me. Would you guys feel better if games were $70 but always included everything the devs wanted the game to include? No DLC, day 1 or otherwise, just one really complete game, but with a higher price point for everyone, to cover any extra development costs.
No later content, if I'm following correctly. Just one-and-done.
Sounds like Nick's prom night!
Yeah, this.
I liked Rockstar's approach for L.A. Noire--you could pay $10 for a ticket that would get you all future DLC, no matter when released. So it kind of was just paying a little extra to get more game.
Although I never felt that the absence of any of the cases from the DLC would have detracted from the game overall and a mission-based game like that is the kind that benefits from DLC as opposed to a more fluid one. In fact, this is a little too biased, because I would've happily bought more DLC for that game. Loved the hell out of it.
Although I never felt that the absence of any of the cases from the DLC would have detracted from the game overall and a mission-based game like that is the kind that benefits from DLC as opposed to a more fluid one. In fact, this is a little too biased, because I would've happily bought more DLC for that game. Loved the hell out of it.
S
SeraRelm
I have my money ready to throw at secret world. the beta is up again and I am re-addicted to the storyline/atmosphere.
Because while the publishers might be thinking "All this stuff here is what the customer is buying when he buys the disk, but this other stuff on the disk is for DLC. He hasn't bought that yet." The customer on the other hand is thinking "I bought the game disk, so I bought all the content that's on the disk."
For years the customers view was what happened - you might not see all that content because you weren't good enough at the game, or you didn't play it enough, but it was there waiting for you because you'd paid for it.
And then suddenly some of that content wasn't waiting for you. If you wanted it, you had to pay for it. Again.
Maybe that's not fair, after all we never really got all the content that was on the disk - the GTA Hot Coffee debacle for example.
But that's the perception - this stuff is already on the disk that I bought, I've already paid for it, why are you asking me to pay for it again you greedy ripoff merchant?
I think for me, it lies in the scope of the DLC. For example, extra costumes and other micro transactions. Developers can charge for those to their heart's content. I don't need it to finish the game, it doesn't detract from my gaming experience to not have them.
Another example of DLC I'm OK with are story expansions, such as the Traitor's Keep expansion to Fable 3, or Project: Overlord (which is the best example I can think of of DLC done right), the new Harley Quinn's Revenge for Arkham City, etc...
Where it starts getting dicey is stuff that is part and parcel to the main game, for example the Prothean in Mass Effect 3, or the full roster of characters on Streetfighter X Tekken.
Another example of DLC I'm OK with are story expansions, such as the Traitor's Keep expansion to Fable 3, or Project: Overlord (which is the best example I can think of of DLC done right), the new Harley Quinn's Revenge for Arkham City, etc...
Where it starts getting dicey is stuff that is part and parcel to the main game, for example the Prothean in Mass Effect 3, or the full roster of characters on Streetfighter X Tekken.
Except you never paid for it the first time. This is the source of the disconnect between pubs and consumers.
Which really just begs the question: is it as simple as not putting it on the disk? Still day 1, but now you have to download it entirely. My gut (at least from this thread) would seem to indicate not.
Added at: 00:43
See, this makes sense. Your basis for what constitutes "good" and "bad" DLC is based entirely on how you value particular content and now has nothing to do with "Day 1" or "on disk".
Ayep. I blame producers (ie, those people whose priority is to make their money back). I know it's not rational (without producers nothing gets funded), but that's what my idealist brain wants to think.
--Patrick
It's a combo of a lot of different pressures.
Producers want to make the money back, but since the industry is so small, they also want their games to be successes (i.e. "I produced this!"). So they end up basically playing middleman between the developers and the actual folks holding the money pouch (operations directors, major shareholders, etc.), and the latter are not especially friendly to flexible deadlines and changing milestone goals.
There's also a big tendency in AAA titles towards feature creep; it's a hit-driven business at that level, which means that every time there is a new hit, related games in that space need to either have key features they have or make a credible argument for why they don't need them. It's like how everything has to have deep multiplayer now. Multiplayer is far from a bad thing, but it may not be the best fit for every game, and trying to shoehorn it (or any other "must-have" competitive feature) in absolutely takes dev time away from other things.
Add in the typical American corporate bloat, and it's not too surprising that we end up with games that really should have gone another month or three in the clean-up/polish phase.
Right now, Valve is the closest thing we have to a publisher/developer house that is relatively streamlined and focused enough to (mostly) overcome these problems, and large part of why a lot of this stuff doesn't happen is also because they have no public shares and Gabe Newell is much more insane game designer than money man (which says quite a lot, seeing as how he's possibly a billionaire).
Producers want to make the money back, but since the industry is so small, they also want their games to be successes (i.e. "I produced this!"). So they end up basically playing middleman between the developers and the actual folks holding the money pouch (operations directors, major shareholders, etc.), and the latter are not especially friendly to flexible deadlines and changing milestone goals.
There's also a big tendency in AAA titles towards feature creep; it's a hit-driven business at that level, which means that every time there is a new hit, related games in that space need to either have key features they have or make a credible argument for why they don't need them. It's like how everything has to have deep multiplayer now. Multiplayer is far from a bad thing, but it may not be the best fit for every game, and trying to shoehorn it (or any other "must-have" competitive feature) in absolutely takes dev time away from other things.
Add in the typical American corporate bloat, and it's not too surprising that we end up with games that really should have gone another month or three in the clean-up/polish phase.
Right now, Valve is the closest thing we have to a publisher/developer house that is relatively streamlined and focused enough to (mostly) overcome these problems, and large part of why a lot of this stuff doesn't happen is also because they have no public shares and Gabe Newell is much more insane game designer than money man (which says quite a lot, seeing as how he's possibly a billionaire).
That kind of explains why the Assassin's Creed games keep having shit-headed padding and mini-games. Ubisoft feels the need to absorb whatever's "in" at the moment into the franchise.
S
SeraRelm
World of Whatcraft?
Pretty much all of console gaming up until consoles didn't have this, until consoles started becoming computers with access to internet, patches, and eventually DLC. So essentially this began with the original Xbox and continued with 360 and PS3. Games for Nintendo systems haven't had this shit so far, up until the DSi, 3DS, and I'm sure the WiiU will start the issues as well.
But NES to PS2 era? Good times.
I think folks are talking about the idea that companies now rely on being able to deliver that first patch on launch day that contains bug fixes. I dunno if that's a real thing (the company relying on it part; obviously there are day 1 bug fix patches), but it certainly looks bad when you pop the disk in the very first day, and then have to download 200 MB in patches, and then the very first thing that happens when you finally finish downloading is a pop-up informing you that you can buy DLC.
I honestly suspect this has more to do with the dev timeline than anything else (they code-lock for RC, but DLC development continues and as they complete the DLC they find more bugs), but it sure as hell looks bad.
T
Tiq
Just wanted to pop in and add a little fuel to this fire...
http://www.destructoid.com/ea-syndicate-failed-old-ip-still-to-be-resurrected-229512.phtml
What the actual fuck?
http://www.destructoid.com/ea-syndicate-failed-old-ip-still-to-be-resurrected-229512.phtml
So EA's idea of a "risk" is gutting a beloved franchise and turning it into an FPS in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator. That actually constitutes a "risk" for them...
What the actual fuck?
T
Tiq
....I see what you did there.
It really does make you wonder what's going through their heads.
Project A gets gutted, turned into something completely different, and is then badly marketed so only the hardcore fans who already have rejected the concept know about it. Project A fails.
Project B gets refreshed instead of rebooted, stays close to its core concepts, makes a point about going back to the primary base for feedback, adds some new things to draw in new blood. Project B succeeds.
IT'S LIKE MAGIC! YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT!
Project A gets gutted, turned into something completely different, and is then badly marketed so only the hardcore fans who already have rejected the concept know about it. Project A fails.
Project B gets refreshed instead of rebooted, stays close to its core concepts, makes a point about going back to the primary base for feedback, adds some new things to draw in new blood. Project B succeeds.
IT'S LIKE MAGIC! YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT!
T
Tiq
Hey guyz.
guyz.
No seriously, guyz... it turns out people don't like having beloved franchises destroyed in front of their very eyes, and re-released as some sort of hellish frankensteins monster.
WHATS THAT ABOUT, EH!?!
I really liked the VATS system. I understand that it's a bit weird from a pure shooter perspective, but it really opened up the combat of the game to something much better than what was really a mediocre shooter. Fallout 3 was a game that I could actually recommend to my friends who don't play shooters but do like RPGs.
Your opinion isn't necessarily shared by the hardcore fans of Fallout 1 and 2 though, judging by the shitstorm of bitching that occurred.
(Disclaimer: I love Fallout 1 and 3, haven't played 2 yet)