when will these AAA publisher/devs realize that the market isnt here to please them, they are here to please the market
CliffyB: Microsoft Tried to "Have it Both Ways"
- Thread starter StewShearerOld
- Start date
Recommended Videos
He is right about how DLC and microtransactions will become more abundant in this next gen. But I don't believe it will be because Microsoft failed to choke us to death. It's probably because they make a lot of money while costing very little.
I love DLC because it's just more content of the game I love. But I don't appreciate Day One DLC. I know how development works where parts of the team aren't doing much on the main game for the last month before release so they start working on DLC. But could you release it a week after the initial release? And not announce it 6 months beforehand? That'd at least give me a false sense of satisfaction that I'm playing a fully fleshed out title. Also, follow the Blood Dragon route more often. That's the way DLC should be done.
I think microtransactions are fine. As long as it's hats or skins or camos or whatever. But if it has anything to do with actual gameplay (Deadspace 3), fuck you. Fuck you and your mother. I'm okay with Battlefield 3's "Pay $10 to unlock all the multiplayer unlocks immediately" because the game is pretty balanced and there's not actually that much difference between what you start with and what you get later. And it doesn't take very long to unlock everything anyways. It's not pay to win. You could argue that the unlocks shouldn't be there in the first place, but I'll argue against that the unlocks help push you into exploring different ways to play the game. And the false sense of achieving something is pretty good, too.
I love DLC because it's just more content of the game I love. But I don't appreciate Day One DLC. I know how development works where parts of the team aren't doing much on the main game for the last month before release so they start working on DLC. But could you release it a week after the initial release? And not announce it 6 months beforehand? That'd at least give me a false sense of satisfaction that I'm playing a fully fleshed out title. Also, follow the Blood Dragon route more often. That's the way DLC should be done.
I think microtransactions are fine. As long as it's hats or skins or camos or whatever. But if it has anything to do with actual gameplay (Deadspace 3), fuck you. Fuck you and your mother. I'm okay with Battlefield 3's "Pay $10 to unlock all the multiplayer unlocks immediately" because the game is pretty balanced and there's not actually that much difference between what you start with and what you get later. And it doesn't take very long to unlock everything anyways. It's not pay to win. You could argue that the unlocks shouldn't be there in the first place, but I'll argue against that the unlocks help push you into exploring different ways to play the game. And the false sense of achieving something is pretty good, too.
I'm a PC gamer, but I can see the appeal of (current and past) consoles. It's usually small and portable, it works without a hassle, it works without installing your games, and apart from a TV, it's not dependent on any external factor. You can bring it over to a friend's house, along with a few discs, and you know you'll be having a good time playing together; it's much easier and more guaranteed to work than setting up a PC LAN party.
Going digital simply isn't the way to go for consoles, IMO. PC already does that, and it does it better, because it's an open platform, which enables competition. Sure, Valve has a near-monopoly, but that's because they offer the best service by far. If they'd stop doing that, they would lose their position. And despite their near-monopoly, there's still enough room under the big tree for a few smaller, more niche services to flourish. And because of the low cost of games and advances in hardware, it's probably even cheaper in the long run than console gaming these days. The "hassle free and independent of any external factors" properties of consoles is what makes them attractive, removing that just makes them crap PC's.
Going digital simply isn't the way to go for consoles, IMO. PC already does that, and it does it better, because it's an open platform, which enables competition. Sure, Valve has a near-monopoly, but that's because they offer the best service by far. If they'd stop doing that, they would lose their position. And despite their near-monopoly, there's still enough room under the big tree for a few smaller, more niche services to flourish. And because of the low cost of games and advances in hardware, it's probably even cheaper in the long run than console gaming these days. The "hassle free and independent of any external factors" properties of consoles is what makes them attractive, removing that just makes them crap PC's.
Digital for me just isn't doable for the amount of games I like to play (I don't do multiplayer so I have more time for other games). My download bandwidth is capped at 80gigs a month and is expensive to upgrade. I download a game like Bioshock Infinite and guess what, 30% of my monthly bandwidth is gone right there. That maybe not seem like a lot but with the general browsing of myself and other people in my house I'd get pretty darn close to breaking the cap. I like to play more than one game a month plus I also have a library of physical games dating back to my NES days.
Digital is fine for little indie games or people who don't have a cap, but the next gen games are probably going to be sitting at the 15-24gig range. Also my internet is fast but I really don't want to wait 1-2 hours to download a game, there's a Game Stop within a 5 minute walk of my house and 3 within a 5-10 minute drive.
Digital is fine for little indie games or people who don't have a cap, but the next gen games are probably going to be sitting at the 15-24gig range. Also my internet is fast but I really don't want to wait 1-2 hours to download a game, there's a Game Stop within a 5 minute walk of my house and 3 within a 5-10 minute drive.
state of decay fastest selling game on Xbox live and its on its why to aut sell minecraft.nodlimax said:
marketing budget for state of decay $0.000.000.
That would also explain why Gamestop get's the best retailer specific pre-order dlc. If everyone is so worried about gamestop, why not put all the cool pre-order dlc on the digital download version? That's something they could've been doing for years. We already know that MS will spend millions to make dlc exclusive to their console for a short period of time.tdylan said:
And yet they still manage to get plenty of gamers to believe that used games are a real problem and have to be stopped. Not that I'm a fan of gamestop specifically but I think the used game market was a good thing before they gouged the hell out of the prices.
On the one hand, what he's saying makes perfect sense, and sounds like it may actually be right.
On the other, it's CliffyB who's saying it, so I'm tempted to assume it's wrong just on that basis.
On the other, it's CliffyB who's saying it, so I'm tempted to assume it's wrong just on that basis.
Clif largely raises good points, but the thing that irritates me the most is the "Pitchfork Mob who can not see six inches beyond thier face"
it is not the Customers responsibility to worry about or ensure the survival of industry. our job is to get the products we want, and we are going to do so in the manner that is going to get us the most value for our dollar. if AAA games are on life support cause they are not making enough profit from thier wares, maybe thier production costs are too high and they need to start slashing budgets.
this can range from hiring actual voice actors instead of big names, to scaling back the scope of projects, limiting cut scenes for more in game exposition, etc etc etc.
it is not the Customers responsibility to worry about or ensure the survival of industry. our job is to get the products we want, and we are going to do so in the manner that is going to get us the most value for our dollar. if AAA games are on life support cause they are not making enough profit from thier wares, maybe thier production costs are too high and they need to start slashing budgets.
this can range from hiring actual voice actors instead of big names, to scaling back the scope of projects, limiting cut scenes for more in game exposition, etc etc etc.
Remind me why Cliffy B is still relevant. He's left Epic Games, and as far as anyone is aware he's doing...Something? It seems all he seems to be filling his time with is being a Shock Jockey as he insults consumers and publishers to fuel his ego-machine.
Someone really needs to sit CliffyB down and calmly explain to him in the simplest possible terms what cognitive dissonance is and why it's annoying to deal with someone (him) who doesn't understand this concept when they pop-off.
I am also continuously amazed at how much this man talks as I would have thought it would have been a lot more difficult to be as prolific in their spouting of garbage as him when they're choking on Microsoft's dick.
I am also continuously amazed at how much this man talks as I would have thought it would have been a lot more difficult to be as prolific in their spouting of garbage as him when they're choking on Microsoft's dick.
Yes used games are the death of the games industry. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.819542-CliffyB-Microsoft-Tried-to-Have-it-Both-Ways]
The man needs to stop spouting out of his ass.
The man needs to stop spouting out of his ass.
Cant see Cliffy being happy if the £55 a game becomes the norm for PS4/Xbone. Its hard to justify £40 for most titles, but £55? Also, digital distribution still exists on the xbone so a company can produce a AAA game and make it DD only. But, i know they would still expect £55 for it. But i think with some AAA titles, a lot of money is spent and wasted.
If they really want to block people buying used versions of his game. Make them digital downloaded for £25 and let the copy in the shop sell for £55. A lot of people would get the DD version, developers get more money and wont to worry about used sales as its digital. Its how Steam works, and no one has ever moaned about used games, not sharing/lending because its all digital and those complaints arnt applicable.
If they really want to block people buying used versions of his game. Make them digital downloaded for £25 and let the copy in the shop sell for £55. A lot of people would get the DD version, developers get more money and wont to worry about used sales as its digital. Its how Steam works, and no one has ever moaned about used games, not sharing/lending because its all digital and those complaints arnt applicable.
This from man who doesn't see how pushing to kill used games is nothing more than a pitiful stopgap of an attempt to deal with ballooning game budgets.StewShearer said:
Yes, something needs to change. The game industry needs to reign their budgets in. Just because you can spend $200 million to create a 4-hour long "cinematic" experience with no cultural or artistic value in an already crowded market doesn't mean that you should. There's only so much money to be squeezed out of any given market, and no amount of DRM or DLC is going to save you when you decide to spend more than that amount because you totally can't ship your game fully of crappy dialog unless it's all lavishly voice-acted with mo-cap facial expressions.
Uhh, Cliffyb does realize there's been used games and video rentals since the 80's? You know, NES days? Used games aren't the problem, it's studios wasting millions that is the problem. You can make a great "AAA" quality game on a lower budget, just look at Torchlight2. Awesome game, better than Diablo.
As for digital downloads...
Until ISP's around the world increases bandwidth caps, makes high speed in more areas, digital distrobution is not the way to go. Maybe in 10 years when we all have fiber connections, but not now when there's a chunk still using dial-up.
captcha: bath water. Think Cliffyb has been drinking it
As for digital downloads...
There are millions of gamers just like kamay. I'm one of them too. We have a 100GB cap, shared between five people, so maybe I can download one or two games.kamay said:
Until ISP's around the world increases bandwidth caps, makes high speed in more areas, digital distrobution is not the way to go. Maybe in 10 years when we all have fiber connections, but not now when there's a chunk still using dial-up.
captcha: bath water. Think Cliffyb has been drinking it
You're not. Hell, I just went out to the bookstore last week to pick up the box collection of A Song of Ice and Fire Books 1-4 + A Dance with Dragons and a few Terry Pratchett novels. Sadly it seems that more and more people are turning digital these days though. Of course, I've been parroting the same thing so much the past few days that I feel like a broken record, but suffice to say that I find digital more convenient on my PC, which is usually connected to the internet, and I like physical disks for my consoles, which are never connected to the internet--Partly because of the way I grew up and partly because practically everyone else in my family has been a collector and hoarder.Bix96 said:
But I also fear for when Microsoft and Sony do push their consoles into a more digital future. As much as people like to bandy about Steam having a 'monopoly', it's not actually quite true. Sure, many, many games use Steamworks for DRM, even in their physical retail copies. But GoG has a massive collection of DRM-free games, often including new indie titles. Though I don't know whether they're DRM-free or activate on Steam, Green Man Gaming does the same. And if you don't feel like giving money to Steam even though the games you buy will activate on Steam, you can buy from Amazon or occasionally retail stores as well. Microsoft and Sony jumping into the digital marketplace at this point would be a lot like what EA tried to do with Origin: Stifle competition by pulling your titles from the largest competitor you have to worry about and offer them exclusively on your system. Especially if they kill physical copies, because the console space doesn't have alternative sites like Green Man Gaming or GoG.
TL;DR? I don't see a digital future for consoles going well. When Microsoft can offer all of their titles on XBL and Sony can offer all of their titles on the PSN without worrying about competing in a retail space, what's to stop them from trying to exert complete control over their customers once again?
There is nothing wrong with digital distribution.
MS's version of it, with 24 hour checking in (like we are on parole or something) and complicated "permissions", however is asinine. MS has set back digital distribution by a decade with the mess that was the Xbone.
All I can say about used games is, DealWithIt. The movie, music and book industries have.
MS's version of it, with 24 hour checking in (like we are on parole or something) and complicated "permissions", however is asinine. MS has set back digital distribution by a decade with the mess that was the Xbone.
This basically sums it up. The industry seem to have forgotten we don't owe them shit.Scrumpmonkey said:
All I can say about used games is, DealWithIt. The movie, music and book industries have.
Ok, I read The entire Rant from the guy with the boner chainsaw gun, and wathched 26 of the 28 minute long video he posted.
Boner gun is complaining that AAA titles don't have a smart medium to make enough money to keep going.
In the video Boner gun links, Used game hater rambles on for almost 30 minutes explaining that used game companies are bad b/c they take money from publishers.
Both dance around the idea that the real problem is that neither developers or companies like Microsoft have come up with a system which is competitive to the one we currently have: Consumer choice is mainly driven by cost: GameStop provides games and the cheapest cost for consumers.
Showing my age here, remember when Apple first introduced iTunes and the fact every song was 99 cents? Youngins may not, but the firestorm was that not every song is as good as the other and therefore should not cost the same. Also the idea was that 99 cents was too cheap either way because how could the poor music artist make money? The consumer didn't care because it was the simplest way to get legal music and cheaper than having to buy an entire CD for maybe one or two songs you wanted from an artist. Today we still have music and artists make money. No one (the avg. consumer) didn't care about the DRM which hovered on your songs for years in iTunes, it was so much easier than cassettes or cd players.
Everyone talks about Steam being the perfect system, but who can remember how weird it was taking your Counter Strike keys and trading them in for this new Steam platform? Nothing was guaranteed that Steam would be a success, but all it took was for one steam sale to show up on a title you've wanted to play but didn't want to pay full price for to see the benefit. Not often do people mention that Steam is in fact always-on DRM for your game because it does a great job of not cluttering up the gaming experience. It's more convenient to launch steam, have the platform check for updates on my games, buy new hats for TF2 in game, browse Steam sales, than it is to use a browser window.
These two events are important because they show how smart companies can solve problems that benefit both the industry and the consumer.
Boner gun is right. iOS devices stand to reap the rewards from the greedy mess MS, Sony and Nintendo have put the industry in because it's a much larger, stronger, much more stable and reliable base for developers than any other platform on the market right now besides steam for gaming.
TLDR: If publishers don't make money making games for consoles, make them for a PC / iOS. The market is large, there aren't any used games. or BS licensing with Sony/Nintendo/MS.
Boner gun is complaining that AAA titles don't have a smart medium to make enough money to keep going.
In the video Boner gun links, Used game hater rambles on for almost 30 minutes explaining that used game companies are bad b/c they take money from publishers.
Both dance around the idea that the real problem is that neither developers or companies like Microsoft have come up with a system which is competitive to the one we currently have: Consumer choice is mainly driven by cost: GameStop provides games and the cheapest cost for consumers.
Showing my age here, remember when Apple first introduced iTunes and the fact every song was 99 cents? Youngins may not, but the firestorm was that not every song is as good as the other and therefore should not cost the same. Also the idea was that 99 cents was too cheap either way because how could the poor music artist make money? The consumer didn't care because it was the simplest way to get legal music and cheaper than having to buy an entire CD for maybe one or two songs you wanted from an artist. Today we still have music and artists make money. No one (the avg. consumer) didn't care about the DRM which hovered on your songs for years in iTunes, it was so much easier than cassettes or cd players.
Everyone talks about Steam being the perfect system, but who can remember how weird it was taking your Counter Strike keys and trading them in for this new Steam platform? Nothing was guaranteed that Steam would be a success, but all it took was for one steam sale to show up on a title you've wanted to play but didn't want to pay full price for to see the benefit. Not often do people mention that Steam is in fact always-on DRM for your game because it does a great job of not cluttering up the gaming experience. It's more convenient to launch steam, have the platform check for updates on my games, buy new hats for TF2 in game, browse Steam sales, than it is to use a browser window.
These two events are important because they show how smart companies can solve problems that benefit both the industry and the consumer.
Boner gun is right. iOS devices stand to reap the rewards from the greedy mess MS, Sony and Nintendo have put the industry in because it's a much larger, stronger, much more stable and reliable base for developers than any other platform on the market right now besides steam for gaming.
TLDR: If publishers don't make money making games for consoles, make them for a PC / iOS. The market is large, there aren't any used games. or BS licensing with Sony/Nintendo/MS.