Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes Review - Snake Oil

Daemascus

WAAAAAAAAAGHHH!!!!
Mar 6, 2010
792
0
0
I don't really mind the price, even if it is stupidly high. After playing the excellent Metal Gear Rising:Revengeance, and getting interested in the universe, I would like to play a new MGS. If and when its out on PC that is.
 

Dunwich

New member
Mar 18, 2014
5
0
0
bullet time and marking enemies? sounds like black marks to me, i didnt see it mentioned anywhere, but can those be turned off or are forced off at higher difficulties?
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
16,867
840
118
I can't remember it too well, but I don't believe the MGS2 demo was the entire Tanker level. I think some stuff got locked away. The ending definintely did.

But still, yeah this is a shitty tactic from Konami. It's the only property they have left that's worth a damn, and they know MGS fans can't wait for new content. So is this "game" just that military base and nothing else?
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Daemascus said:
I don't really mind the price, even if it is stupidly high. After playing the excellent Metal Gear Rising:Revengeance, and getting interested in the universe, I would like to play a new MGS. If and when its out on PC that is.
You should check out the Legacy Collection on the PS3, or at least the HD collection (Legacy has the first Metal Gear, as well as the fourth, which makes it a better deal). Aside from the first one, they all hold up pretty well to modern games, and still look great. I only played them last year and I was hooked.

Which is why it's really disappointing that Konami and Kojima would pull a stunt like this. And they're definitely not going to include this content on the full Phantom Pain release, ala The Orange Box?

Well I guess this will give me more time to finish Peace Walker and Revengeance while this goes down to a more acceptable price range.
 

Arslan Aladeen

New member
Oct 9, 2012
371
0
0
So I figure I'll just Red Box this over the weekend and just get the Phantom Pain, preferably the special edition which will include GZ and any other extras.
 

Darth_Payn

New member
Aug 5, 2009
2,868
0
0
So Ground Zeroes WON'T be included in The Phantom Pain as a prologue chapter or something like that? And this game doesn't tell much of the story? I am disappoint.

Still won't stop me from getting MGS V.
Dunwich said:
bullet time and marking enemies? sounds like black marks to me, i didnt see it mentioned anywhere, but can those be turned off or are forced off at higher difficulties?
To me those sound kind of nifty. I wonder if MGS V borrows anything from the Assassin's Creed series. I know both dev teams are fans of each other's work.
 

themilo504

New member
May 9, 2010
731
0
0
Wow konami is charging 30 bucks for a demo, I admire their balls even if I really hope nobody buys it.
 

rofltehcat

New member
Jul 24, 2009
635
0
0
That price point looks really like they have completely forgotten that lower price points exist and this sounds like it simply isn't worth $30.

Konami, why are you doing this? If you'd release it for free, $5 or $10 people would probably enjoy this a lot. But instead, all this demo is giving you is a scolding from all sides. Oh wait. It is Konami...
 

gamegod25

New member
Jul 10, 2008
863
0
0
Welcome to the future of AAA gaming: full games chopped up and sold to us piecemeal for the price of a whole game.

Times like this I actually hope that the industry crashes if it means putting a stop to this kind of shit.
 

Not Lord Atkin

I'm dead inside.
Oct 25, 2008
648
0
0
I'm looking forward to the subtitle of Jim's review of Phantom Pain.

"Metal Gear Solid V: Phantom Pain - It Makes My Snake Solid"


As for this... I have no intention to buy it. There are games way cheaper and way more full of content than this. I can wait.
 

scorptatious

The Resident Team ICO Fanboy
May 14, 2009
7,405
0
0
So I guess I'm not going to miss much then? Guess I'll just wait for MGS5 then. Thanks Jim!
 

Steve2911

New member
May 3, 2010
79
0
0
I'm still looking forward to it this Friday. The £23 I'm paying doesn't really bother me for the 10 or so hours I'm likely to get out of it. By all accounts it sounds brilliant regardless of whether the content represents value for money.
 

-Dragmire-

King over my mind
Mar 29, 2011
2,821
0
0
I find it interesting that TB just did a vlog that included the topic of whether the price should affect the score when prices go down over time while content stays the same. It means the score isn't future proofed so when the price drops, the score is no longer applicable. That said, deciding on a purchase entirely based on the final score without reading the review wouldn't be a very intelligent thing to do.

Relevant part starts at 4:30
 

AnthrSolidSnake

New member
Jun 2, 2011
824
0
0
Mcoffey said:
Daemascus said:
I don't really mind the price, even if it is stupidly high. After playing the excellent Metal Gear Rising:Revengeance, and getting interested in the universe, I would like to play a new MGS. If and when its out on PC that is.
You should check out the Legacy Collection on the PS3, or at least the HD collection (Legacy has the first Metal Gear, as well as the fourth, which makes it a better deal). Aside from the first one, they all hold up pretty well to modern games, and still look great. I only played them last year and I was hooked.
Well, if you don't buy it used that is. I found that out the hard way. For some reason MGS1 is only available through an online voucher, and used copies don't have it.

You may be asking, "why didn't you buy it new?". You see, I tried, but my Gamestop was out of new copies, so the guy offered me a used copy at a few dollars less. Saying aloud, "Well, as long as everything is still on there", the guy hands me the used copy, I walk out the door happy, and get home to find out there is no MGS1 to be found. I would have loved to go back out there to make a deal about it, but my ride decided it wasn't that big of a deal, so my collection was ruined.
 

RedDeadFred

Illusions, Michael!
May 13, 2009
4,896
0
0
I don't normally want games to fail horribly but I'll make an exception in this case. If this sells well, other devs might start charging money for their demos too. Wouldn't be surprised if devs started selling their tutorials... I REALLY hope this bombs because the charging price is just absurd.
 

GonzoGamer

New member
Apr 9, 2008
7,063
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
It's like they're selling DLC before the game actually comes out.
Where have you been? They've been doing this for a while. Sure not as overtly, but at least with this, the DLC is playable I guess.
I saw this coming when they started accepting preorders for season passes for games before they launch. Gamers are too willing to throw down money before we know what we got. Between that, gamers buying crap games so they can beta test big name games; or just paying to beta-test either intentionally (like with anything on greenlight) or unintentionally (like with anything by Bethesda). Gamers have such a reputation as reckless consumers that I was actually shocked when MS announced they were dialing down their original schemes for the xbone.

It would've been one thing if they made this a part of a season pass you could pre order. That would've been sleazy enough, but to sell a demo for half the cost of an actual game, it just reeks of desperation. If they're trying this hard to get people's money before launch, the game must be pretty awful or they're teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Is MG the only profitable series Konami has anymore?
 

otakon17

New member
Jun 21, 2010
1,338
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes Review - Snake Oil

It really is a thirty dollar demo.

Read Full Article
I could have sworn I said this earlier on here... oh well I'm not getting it because no consoles right now. Christ Konami, the hell are you doing now?
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
AnthrSolidSnake said:
Mcoffey said:
Daemascus said:
I don't really mind the price, even if it is stupidly high. After playing the excellent Metal Gear Rising:Revengeance, and getting interested in the universe, I would like to play a new MGS. If and when its out on PC that is.
You should check out the Legacy Collection on the PS3, or at least the HD collection (Legacy has the first Metal Gear, as well as the fourth, which makes it a better deal). Aside from the first one, they all hold up pretty well to modern games, and still look great. I only played them last year and I was hooked.
Well, if you don't buy it used that is. I found that out the hard way. For some reason MGS1 is only available through an online voucher, and used copies don't have it.

You may be asking, "why didn't you buy it new?". You see, I tried, but my Gamestop was out of new copies, so the guy offered me a used copy at a few dollars less. Saying aloud, "Well, as long as everything is still on there", the guy hands me the used copy, I walk out the door happy, and get home to find out there is no MGS1 to be found. I would have loved to go back out there to make a deal about it, but my ride decided it wasn't that big of a deal, so my collection was ruined.
Did you keep the receipt? You can return games at different gamestops, so long as you can prove you bought it from them.

That does suck though. Stuff like this always makes me wary because alot of the complete collections are just repacking of the original games and unlock codes for the other stuff, like the God of War and Infamous collections. It's a really underhanded way of making sure customers buy new.
 

AnthrSolidSnake

New member
Jun 2, 2011
824
0
0
Mcoffey said:
AnthrSolidSnake said:
Mcoffey said:
Daemascus said:
I don't really mind the price, even if it is stupidly high. After playing the excellent Metal Gear Rising:Revengeance, and getting interested in the universe, I would like to play a new MGS. If and when its out on PC that is.
You should check out the Legacy Collection on the PS3, or at least the HD collection (Legacy has the first Metal Gear, as well as the fourth, which makes it a better deal). Aside from the first one, they all hold up pretty well to modern games, and still look great. I only played them last year and I was hooked.
Well, if you don't buy it used that is. I found that out the hard way. For some reason MGS1 is only available through an online voucher, and used copies don't have it.

You may be asking, "why didn't you buy it new?". You see, I tried, but my Gamestop was out of new copies, so the guy offered me a used copy at a few dollars less. Saying aloud, "Well, as long as everything is still on there", the guy hands me the used copy, I walk out the door happy, and get home to find out there is no MGS1 to be found. I would have loved to go back out there to make a deal about it, but my ride decided it wasn't that big of a deal, so my collection was ruined.
Did you keep the receipt? You can return games at different gamestops, so long as you can prove you bought it from them.

That does suck though. Stuff like this always makes me wary because alot of the complete collections are just repacking of the original games and unlock codes for the other stuff, like the God of War and Infamous collections. It's a really underhanded way of making sure customers buy new.
I do still have it, but I bought the collection about two weeks ago. Like I said, my ride to get there (I don't have my own car at the moment) decided it wasn't a big deal, so I had to compromise not playing the first game. (Which is of course the only game in the entire MGS franchise I don't have anymore.)

The only game collection that I bought that didn't use some sort of online voucher garbage to bribe me into a new copy was the Resistance collection.
 

WarpZone

New member
Mar 9, 2008
423
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes Review - Snake Oil

It really is a thirty dollar demo.
It'd be hilarious if the reason this exists is because of the backlash against Colonial Marines that you pretty much led the charge on.

It'd be even more hilarious if they end up stripping out everything that was good about the demo in order to make it "more like Call of Duty."

I mean, don't get me wrong, it'd be sad. But hilarious.
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
I think your better off buying this closer to when the main game is released and it will be ultra cheap. Kinda like watching part one of a movie just before you watch part 2....if that makes sense. Thing is, some reviews compare this to the ME2 tanker demo, except that demo was released with Zoe, a full price full game - an that tanker demo was the best part of MG2, the rest was dissapointing. I know major fans will buy this, and thats fine as its their money and they think its worth the cost then thats great and i hope they get a lot of fun out of it. Though i do hope this charging for a demo doesnt become a habit, we had that GT5 and now this, though i never played the GT5 "demo" so it could have been worth it. Just seems that console gaming is taking all the bad parts of mobile gaming at the moment.
 

Andy of Comix Inc

New member
Apr 2, 2010
2,234
0
0
It was Koajim Mogren's fault! He's the one! He's the one you're after, officer!

SonOfVoorhees said:
the ME2 tanker demo, except that demo was released with Zoe, a full price full game - an that tanker demo was the best part of MG2, the rest was dissapointing
yes um hello, do you mean MGS2? because MG2 would be:

 

SonOfMethuselah

New member
Oct 9, 2012
360
0
0
Andy of Comix Inc said:
It was Koajim Mogren's fault! He's the one! He's the one you're after, officer!

SonOfVoorhees said:
the ME2 tanker demo, except that demo was released with Zoe, a full price full game - an that tanker demo was the best part of MG2, the rest was dissapointing
yes um hello, do you mean MGS2? because MG2 would be:

So, you point out that he missed the 's' in MGS 2, but not that he previously referred to MGS 2 as ME 2, which, of course, isn't even part of the same series. Way to pick your battles. :p

OT: When I first heard about Ground Zeroes, I assumed it was going to be like the tanker mission. When I heard it was going to be separate, I assumed it was going to be of a decent length. When I heard it was going to be rather short, I assumed it would be cheap, if not free. When I heard it was $30, I stopped listening. I mean, I'm glad that it's decent enough that, should the price drop or go away entirely, it's worth playing, but that it came out at $30 to begin with is just disgusting. This is why I don't really want to videogames anymore.
 

nevarran

New member
Apr 6, 2010
347
0
0
Expect more of this. Selling the demo of your game, that's a gold mine, if there's ever been one.
Connect the content with some story references to the actual game, so people would feel obliged to buy it. Throw in some gimmicks to make it longer than 30 min., and there you have it - 30 bucks.
That's the next DLC, mark my word.
 

furai47

New member
Nov 18, 2009
61
0
0
Look, I'll be the first to say Konami are exploiting the MGS fanbase with this title...but by god if this isn't the most brilliantly constructed thing ever.
Story doesn't tie in to the Phantom Pain? Boy, you have no idea.
 

KnightOfTwo

New member
Jan 10, 2012
27
0
0
I have the same reaction to this as when they announced how the split for Phantom Pain and Ground Zeroes was gonna work, in that I cannot understand what the point of Ground Zeroes is other than to just make a quick buck.

It's too far away from the release of Phantom Pain to build a good momentum of hype that persists until Phantom Pain launches. It's too expensive (currently) to act as a low-budget, standalone experience that doubles as a demo (see Dead Rising: Case Zero, the only time this has worked in recent memory. From Capcom of all companies!)

It's too short AND it lacks enough content to act as its own, fully-fledged game. Yes, Revengence was short, however it had quite a lot of extra content past the initial playthrough to justify its length (unlocking new weapons and costumes, the VR mode, if you bought the PC version like I did then the two DLC chapters are included, etc).

It doesn't come bundled with another game to act as a cross-promotional purchase a la Zone of the Enders as Jim mentioned. If they hadn't announced MGS5 already, they could have used this as a sneaky announcement, for instance if they hadn't announced Phantom Pain but Lords of Shadow 2 had come with a copy of Ground Zeroes which ended with a promotion for Phantom Pain, that could have worked as a way to generate some good buzz (and generated more interest in Lords of Shadow 2).

I really just don't see the point in Ground Zeroes at all.
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
This really is a new low, I cannot believe that people are trying to spin this either. This is why the industry is able to make mugs of us all, sure $30 isn't all that much and sure some people really, really like Metal Gear Solid but rewarding any publisher for behaving like this will come back and bite us all in the arse. It has done in the past and once Activision, EA and Ubisoft see that not only will people buy this they will run around the gaming community doing their PR for them by trying to spin it and defend it!

It isnt a fallacy when it really is a slippery slope, get ready for some DLC with your $30 demos so don't forget to pre-order your season pass.
 

Falterfire

New member
Jul 9, 2012
810
0
0
J Tyran said:
Activision, EA and Ubisoft see that not only will people buy this they will run around the gaming community doing their PR for them by trying to spin it and defend it!
The other two, maybe, but Ubisoft already has figured out how to do this properly - Look at Blood Dragon, Gunslinger, and Freedom Cry - They've figured out how to create shorter but still complete games and price them appropriately and from what I can tell said adventures have made them a decent bit of cash.

If anything, Konami could stand to learn from Ubisoft here.
 

MisterGobbles

New member
Nov 30, 2009
747
0
0
I agree with Jim. I don't think selling prologue content is a bad idea, Dead Rising 2 did it and it worked perfectly and was around the same length. But that game was 15 dollars. The price point here is the ONLY issue: if this game was 15 or even 20 dollars, I don't think the price point would even come up. But Konami decided to price it as high as they felt they could get away with, which is very sketchy. Despite that, I think you'll see the price on this drop pretty soon if Metal Gear Rising is any indication.

I got the game basically for free while trading in some stuff I didn't like, and I genuinely had a lot of fun with it. Even though it's a relatively short experience, it's very satisfying and the gameplay is really solid. I haven't played any of the end game content yet though, so I can't judge.

Remember when things were a "must-rent"? Does anyone actually rent video games anymore? This one would be a prime example of it. Rent, don't buy.
 

therightpirate

New member
Sep 23, 2010
28
0
0
If you all remember Capcom had a similar standalone game release like this a couple years back that was exclusive for the Xbox 360 where we got a paid demo that gave us a unique setting and side mission/prologue much like in Ground Zeroes. It was called Dead Rising: Case Zero. It wasn't the best game. It was short, and could be beaten in an hour. It had a very small map and a handful of side missions/weapons in comparison to it's full featured main game. But it was in itself a cohesive game. It even had a boss battle. It too allowed for a save file to be brought over to the main game, Dead Rising 2. And ultimately it worked and sold well and was well reviewed.

Why you might ask? Well beyond it actually being a decent game that was fun to play it was $5!!! Yes FIVE DOLLARS. If Ground Zeroes had released for $5 or even $10 (again they could have had that price difference between the old gen and current gen) we wouldn't be talking about it like we are now. This should have been a downloadable only title and cheaply priced as Jim is correct in saying that it is essentially about selling MGS5. I'd rather they would have added an extra $10 on MGS5 than on this as I'm sure it's going to be an amazing game worth an extra few dollars. It's amazing that I'm crediting Capcom with anything here . . . I mean Capcom!? But they set a standard in excellence with Dead Rising: Case Zero in creating a great demo that was worth forking out $5 for. And I'm sure they ultimately made their money back on that demo as from what I recall it sold well over 600,000 copies. I think many of us would have bough Ground Zeroes on Day 1 if it was at that price. And it would have even lured in non-MGS fans such as myself who aren't all that familiar with the series. But there's no way I'm ever going to pay this amount for the game. I might buy a used disc copy for $5 or I might wait until perhaps there is a 75% off sale on the game on the XBLM. But I'm not paying $20 for a demo. Shame on Konami. I cannot believe I'm going to tell a company to look at Capcom and learn from their behaviour but here I go. Capcom, when it comes to pay-to-play demos yay on you. Konami, truly, shame on you. I hope sales for this product dictate it's a flop so we never see this sort of behaviour again.
 

therightpirate

New member
Sep 23, 2010
28
0
0
MisterGobbles said:
Dead Rising 2 did it and it worked perfectly and was around the same length. But that game was 15 dollars.
You made a mistake. Dead Rising's downloadable prologue Case Zero was originally priced at 400MPS or approximately $5 and not $15 as you said in your comment. It has during some sales been 200MPS or $2.50 though. It's a bargain at both prices IMHO. It is probably worth $15 though, but thankfully when Capcom (again why am I praising Capcom?) was pricing the game the guy who usually stuffs things up for players by ensuring poor practices was likely on holidays . . . they really need to fire that guy
 

rofltehcat

New member
Jul 24, 2009
635
0
0
-Dragmire- said:
I find it interesting that TB just did a vlog that included the topic of whether the price should affect the score when prices go down over time while content stays the same. It means the score isn't future proofed so when the price drops, the score is no longer applicable. That said, deciding on a purchase entirely based on the final score without reading the review wouldn't be a very intelligent thing to do.

Relevant part starts at 4:30
Imo, review scores are never future proof. A game might be patched (for better or worse) or the reviewer might not have experienced problems that normal people will encounter either because they spend far less time with it or because some problems (e.g. broken servers) only crop up once the public has access.

I also disagree on TB's assessment: If anything, the price point should always be taken into account for reviews. If that be in the text, some disclaimer box or the game's rating doesn't really matter that much (at least to me), arbitrary as the scores anyways tend to be. I'd totally be ok if more sites gave additional disclaimers, recommendations (e.g. "pick up reduced" or "rent" as some sites and magazines did) or even dual scores (like a game magazine I used to read in my teens).
There are many good games with too little content for too high a price that I'll happily pick up once they had a few price drops. But at their starting price point I feel their price often isn't warranted.

It probably also depends a lot on your view what review scores are supposed to be. If they are seen as a recommendation near launch, factoring in the price can make a lot more sense than when seeing them as a pure quality rating. TB says himself that he doesn't like review scores and thus also doesn't use them himself but he is still telling you buying recommendations, be it in some of his WTF videos and even has a video format showcasing the best Steam deals.
I like his videos and the style he does them in and they are often a lot more helpful to me than a plain review score but then again reviews also consist of a lot more than just the rating.

If there is a problem, it is caused by people only looking at the scores to begin with. Which incidentally is probably also one of the reasons why games have gotten much shorter and seem to continue that trend.
 

-Dragmire-

King over my mind
Mar 29, 2011
2,821
0
0
rofltehcat said:
-Dragmire- said:
I find it interesting that TB just did a vlog that included the topic of whether the price should affect the score when prices go down over time while content stays the same. It means the score isn't future proofed so when the price drops, the score is no longer applicable. That said, deciding on a purchase entirely based on the final score without reading the review wouldn't be a very intelligent thing to do.

Relevant part starts at 4:30
Imo, review scores are never future proof. A game might be patched (for better or worse) or the reviewer might not have experienced problems that normal people will encounter either because they spend far less time with it or because some problems (e.g. broken servers) only crop up once the public has access.

I also disagree on TB's assessment: If anything, the price point should always be taken into account for reviews. If that be in the text, some disclaimer box or the game's rating doesn't really matter that much (at least to me), arbitrary as the scores anyways tend to be. I'd totally be ok if more sites gave additional disclaimers, recommendations (e.g. "pick up reduced" or "rent" as some sites and magazines did) or even dual scores (like a game magazine I used to read in my teens).
There are many good games with too little content for too high a price that I'll happily pick up once they had a few price drops. But at their starting price point I feel their price often isn't warranted.

It probably also depends a lot on your view what review scores are supposed to be. If they are seen as a recommendation near launch, factoring in the price can make a lot more sense than when seeing them as a pure quality rating. TB says himself that he doesn't like review scores and thus also doesn't use them himself but he is still telling you buying recommendations, be it in some of his WTF videos and even has a video format showcasing the best Steam deals.
I like his videos and the style he does them in and they are often a lot more helpful to me than a plain review score but then again reviews also consist of a lot more than just the rating.

If there is a problem, it is caused by people only looking at the scores to begin with. Which incidentally is probably also one of the reasons why games have gotten much shorter and seem to continue that trend.
I agree with you, I posted the video just because the value of this game was brought up so much by Jim that it seemed like quite a coincidence and an interesting topic.

It would definitely be useful info for a review to say the price point at the point it is reviewed(wonder how many regions would be listed on average, steam prices can vary wildly from region to region I hear). Good point about patches though, I forgot about how much of a difference that can make, especially when certain companies rely on patches to get their to the fully featured point it's supposed to be.

Still, if the price affects the score to the reviewer then that should be explicitly said. That seems fair all around.
 

Sheo_Dagana

New member
Aug 12, 2009
966
0
0
Not to defend this game's existence with how utterly and unpleasantly brief this game is, but it's not the first time a company has released a 'demo' game before the finished product. Gran Turismo 5 Prologue was practically a demo I believe it was originally priced at 39.99 when it originally released. So this isn't a new concept, but it's not exactly one I approve of.

The game is good, but after having already finished it, I traded it right back in and got a lot of what I paid for back, so it sort of mitigated my losses. Still, I don't really feel like it's an experience I should have had to pay for.
 

Andy of Comix Inc

New member
Apr 2, 2010
2,234
0
0
SonOfMethuselah said:
So, you point out that he missed the 's' in MGS 2, but not that he previously referred to MGS 2 as ME 2, which, of course, isn't even part of the same series. Way to pick your battles. :p
I assumed that was a typo of MG2 so I stuck with the MG2 thing. Also, I just really wanted to post a picture of Metal Gear 2.
 

MrBaskerville

New member
Mar 15, 2011
871
0
0
Gaming need some labels, like movies have short films and litterature has short stories. Obviously a "short game" (or whatever) needs to be reviewed properly while it also needs to be priced properly. I think this is too expensive , but i also find i tiresome that reviewers are soo focused on lenght, wouldn't it be more appropriate for a blog or something? I've never seen anyone reading a short story, while complaining that it only took then 1 hour, because usually they spend 11 hours reading a book and some books even clocks in over 40... It's absurd.
 

mjharper

Can
Apr 28, 2013
172
0
0
-Dragmire- said:
I find it interesting that TB just did a vlog that included the topic of whether the price should affect the score when prices go down over time while content stays the same. It means the score isn't future proofed so when the price drops, the score is no longer applicable. That said, deciding on a purchase entirely based on the final score without reading the review wouldn't be a very intelligent thing to do.

Relevant part starts at 4:30
Just to clarify, in the podcast last night TB said (IIRC, and I'm paraphrasing at best) that in this case, price should be a factor because it doesn't seem to be a complete game, but a demo, or as Jim said, a piece of advertising.
 

Jason Soler

New member
May 14, 2010
3
0
0
How many copies do you think Phantom Pain will have to move to make a profit? Kojima is notorious for taking his time with his games and exceeding his budgets. Konami took a long look at SE and came to two conclusions.

1) A marquee game brand like Tomb Raider can't turn a profit on 5 million sales.
2) You can recoup your expected/unexpected losses by reusing tools and engines to crank out additional products in that series.

Why wait till after Phantom Pain, when they can start mitigating those losses now? Why should they pay for advertising when their diehard MGS fans will pay for it for them? I'm sure that the official stance on this product is that it's a treat for the fans of the series, and that they didn't actually HAVE to release it. If that's the case Konami should provide the budget numbers for Phantom Pain, because I GUARANTEE you this game is going to be over budget.

This whole thing is a new low for the gaming industry, and anyone that has ever been mad at a publisher for locking day one DLC on the game disc should be furious at this. The reviews have, for the most part, been kind of good though. This game is getting a free pass because it's part of a legacy franchise that hasn't had a mainline entry in 5 years. If Ubi tried pulling this with Assassin's Creed we would all be getting our torches and pitchforks right now.

Konami has packed demos with other games as recently as Revengence being included in Zone of the Enders collection. Why start charging now? They could have put this into The new Castlevania and added a ton of value to that game. I just don't think that the great graphics or added extras justifies this being released separately. As far back as Square releasing pack in demos with their Playstation games I can think of examples of full featured demos with beautiful graphics (for the time) being free with your 60+ dollar game purchase.

I know I don't HAVE to buy this, and I won't. My primary concern is the people that ARE buying it. Some are being fleeced, and others are just allowing Konami to establish another bad example for other publishers to follow. Say no to this product.
 

-Dragmire-

King over my mind
Mar 29, 2011
2,821
0
0
mjharper said:
-Dragmire- said:
I find it interesting that TB just did a vlog that included the topic of whether the price should affect the score when prices go down over time while content stays the same. It means the score isn't future proofed so when the price drops, the score is no longer applicable. That said, deciding on a purchase entirely based on the final score without reading the review wouldn't be a very intelligent thing to do.

Relevant part starts at 4:30
Just to clarify, in the podcast last night TB said (IIRC, and I'm paraphrasing at best) that in this case, price should be a factor because it doesn't seem to be a complete game, but a demo, or as Jim said, a piece of advertising.
Ah, I haven't listened to that yet. Also, I should have probably clarified my position on the topic since my position isn't an exact mirror of TB's.

I have a more clear version of my feelings in a later post. Not the clearest though since I'm I don't hold a firm position just yet, still more to contemplate on.

Edited out stupid lack of proofreading... [small]I'm don't hold... seriously.[/small]

rofltehcat said:
-Dragmire- said:
I find it interesting that TB just did a vlog that included the topic of whether the price should affect the score when prices go down over time while content stays the same. It means the score isn't future proofed so when the price drops, the score is no longer applicable. That said, deciding on a purchase entirely based on the final score without reading the review wouldn't be a very intelligent thing to do.

Relevant part starts at 4:30
Imo, review scores are never future proof. A game might be patched (for better or worse) or the reviewer might not have experienced problems that normal people will encounter either because they spend far less time with it or because some problems (e.g. broken servers) only crop up once the public has access.

I also disagree on TB's assessment: If anything, the price point should always be taken into account for reviews. If that be in the text, some disclaimer box or the game's rating doesn't really matter that much (at least to me), arbitrary as the scores anyways tend to be. I'd totally be ok if more sites gave additional disclaimers, recommendations (e.g. "pick up reduced" or "rent" as some sites and magazines did) or even dual scores (like a game magazine I used to read in my teens).
There are many good games with too little content for too high a price that I'll happily pick up once they had a few price drops. But at their starting price point I feel their price often isn't warranted.

It probably also depends a lot on your view what review scores are supposed to be. If they are seen as a recommendation near launch, factoring in the price can make a lot more sense than when seeing them as a pure quality rating. TB says himself that he doesn't like review scores and thus also doesn't use them himself but he is still telling you buying recommendations, be it in some of his WTF videos and even has a video format showcasing the best Steam deals.
I like his videos and the style he does them in and they are often a lot more helpful to me than a plain review score but then again reviews also consist of a lot more than just the rating.

If there is a problem, it is caused by people only looking at the scores to begin with. Which incidentally is probably also one of the reasons why games have gotten much shorter and seem to continue that trend.
I agree with you, I posted the video just because the value of this game was brought up so much by Jim that it seemed like quite a coincidence and an interesting topic.

It would definitely be useful info for a review to say the price point at the point it is reviewed(wonder how many regions would be listed on average, steam prices can vary wildly from region to region I hear). Good point about patches though, I forgot about how much of a difference that can make, especially when certain companies rely on patches to get their to the fully featured point it's supposed to be.

Still, if the price affects the score to the reviewer then that should be explicitly said. That seems fair all around.
 

NiPah

New member
May 8, 2009
1,084
0
0
Yup, I love the game, but god'damn is it short.
I went into this expecting it to be short, but it could have used a lot more to flesh out the game to make it feel like an actual game experience, it really did just feel like a single mission in a much larger game that just so happened did not come with the purchase price. This is a shame too, I really went into this wanting to love it, but even with such an amazing experience it just doesn't justify defending it's length.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
I wonder, would Jim rate the game higher if it were free?

Would he lower the rating of a 5-star game if it shot up in price $200?
Does he rate collectors editions lower than the normal editions if he doesn't think the extras don't justify the price?

I'm not sure if I'm on board with the whole "price affecting the rating of a game" thing.