Nexon: The $60 Model Has to Change
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
They already have been. It's called Indy Games. You can get close to, if not more, than 40 hours of entertainment out of those for around $20.
Course, there's also the "Pay $60 for this feature, as well as $10 for this one we've disabled in the game to suck more money out of you" pay stile. Hopefully that one goes and dies in a corner, but so long as people are just going to buy it, I know it wont.
Also, lawl at "best free-to-play games." I think Turbine would have something to say about that.
Course, there's also the "Pay $60 for this feature, as well as $10 for this one we've disabled in the game to suck more money out of you" pay stile. Hopefully that one goes and dies in a corner, but so long as people are just going to buy it, I know it wont.
Also, lawl at "best free-to-play games." I think Turbine would have something to say about that.
It's funny, because EA [http://www.destructoid.com/electronic-arts-thinks-videogames-cost-too-much-i-know-how-weird-that-sounds-51989.phtml] and Todd Howard [http://www.computerandvideogames.com/314236/games-are-too-expensive-but-skyrim-isnt-argues-lead/] both have said that the $60 price point needs to change. And what have they done about it? Not a damn thing. Hell, EA said it way back in 200-fucking-7. And here we are, five years later, they have their own freaking store, and they're selling PC games for $60.Absolutionis said:
This is why I miss that sweet spot where demos were more prevalent than ever. I think F2P is probably unrealistic, but being able to try games is totally within our grasp.DVS BSTrD said:
The problem being, more and more companies realised that if they did that, we might realise how much the game sucks.
KeyMaster45 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm reasonably certain kingdoms of Amalur is currently on sale on origin.
Well talk is cheap and since it is a recession they need to save as much $$$/???/£££ as they can.Irridium said:
This ... so much this ...Nouw said:Free-to-play isn't the future, pay-to-win is.
It's the one reason I stopped with most mmorpgs. If they did a free to play game and just let you pay money for extra stuff to customize with or just aesthetics, I'd be fine. It's the 8x exp stacking to blow past everyone, $ for igc to destroy the in game economy, $ for skills that overpower everything and unbalance the game that lure in these companies for short term wins but in the long term, deter people from playing. Here's an idea, an online game you pay once, maybe 60 bucks, after that you level up, get your gear, get drawn into the world. They think that after that point, they've lost their income and you are now freeloading off them. What they need to realize is that is the point when you might get a friend or two on, who would pay another 60 bucks to join you. Old gamers can be some of their best advertising if they'd just stop trying to milk all the fast cash out of newbies before they find out what's going on.
As long as people buy games that's not going to change.
Besides Free to Play?
There's nothing like that, not one game I hav eplayed so far has given me ALL the content of the game without some charge.
Even Facebook Tetris (I don't play) costs me on electricity bill.
Besides Free to Play?
There's nothing like that, not one game I hav eplayed so far has given me ALL the content of the game without some charge.
Even Facebook Tetris (I don't play) costs me on electricity bill.
Ok wait. I'm too distracted by the image of the sexy chick holding a shield and deflecting a projectile back at what appears to a wolf or some other kind of animal. What is this game about exactly?
Articles like these make me feel like I live in some sort of alternate universe... I keep having the "People actually do that?!" reaction.
As for Nexon games... I played Dungeon Fighter for awhile, but it got incredibly samey in less than a week. I guess I'd rather explore every nook and cranny of a branching storylines or open world than fight palette-swapped enemies over and over in order to collect more powerful palette-swapped equipment.
...I haven't spent less than 100 hours on a $60 game purchase since that became the standard price... and I have a tendency of replaying such titles fairly often.Grey Carter said:
As for Nexon games... I played Dungeon Fighter for awhile, but it got incredibly samey in less than a week. I guess I'd rather explore every nook and cranny of a branching storylines or open world than fight palette-swapped enemies over and over in order to collect more powerful palette-swapped equipment.
$60 is not a fortune, but it is a large enough investment to seriously inhibit the growth of this industry. It's enough that very few can easily just take a punt on a new game, people only ever want to put money down on a sure bet. The result is too many games are derivative and safe.
With a $10-15 movie ticket you can take much more of a chance. And a TV show, most TV shows are free and even pay-per-view is cheap.
I've bought so many games on Steam sale at this price that I'd never have considered. And as much as I love Serious Sam 3, the right price for that game is $40, all things considered.
With a $10-15 movie ticket you can take much more of a chance. And a TV show, most TV shows are free and even pay-per-view is cheap.
I've bought so many games on Steam sale at this price that I'd never have considered. And as much as I love Serious Sam 3, the right price for that game is $40, all things considered.
If companies are going to have issue with resale/used game sales then the 60$ price tag will have to be rethought, but I don't know if F2P will be the answer everyone will embrace. There's a lot of games I would have bought right out the gate if it wasn't for the cost and the knowledge I can pick them up in a couple weeks or a month at a discount (ex. soul calibur 5, portal 2, kingdom of amular). around the 40$ mark may have changed that, but instead all my money will go to EB games or similar.
as much as i love money, some games are worth £40 of my money. i am very happy to pay full price for a product, and invest full price in sequels, if i get the right amount of time for it.
for me, i work out how good a game is based on cost effectiveness, at £1 an hour.
for example, i played deus ex for 47 hours, while only paying £30. i see this as a profit, and a good use of my money. therefore if they make another one, i will likely preorder, because i know i get my moneys worth out of it. the binding of isaac cost me £5, and i got 44 hours in. so the new expansion pack is a must for me. shogun total war 2 cost me £7, but i only played it for half an hour, so i see it as a major loss (it kept crashing, and i didn't have the patience to fix it).
you get the idea...
for me, i work out how good a game is based on cost effectiveness, at £1 an hour.
for example, i played deus ex for 47 hours, while only paying £30. i see this as a profit, and a good use of my money. therefore if they make another one, i will likely preorder, because i know i get my moneys worth out of it. the binding of isaac cost me £5, and i got 44 hours in. so the new expansion pack is a must for me. shogun total war 2 cost me £7, but i only played it for half an hour, so i see it as a major loss (it kept crashing, and i didn't have the patience to fix it).
you get the idea...
Although episodic games (ala Half Life 2) are considered a joke by many, I think they are the way forwards:
Games don't need to be as long as they are; people complained about the length of Mirror's Edge, when in fact in my opinion it was the perfect length for a single player non-sandbox game. The problem is the price: a full £40 ($60) for a game of this length is ridiculous.
The "$60 model" does have to change, and I think the way forwards is bringing that price down to $30 for around half the playtime (i.e, an episodic game). This will drastically reduce development costs, making arty, interesting and plot-driven games of AAA quality less of a risk for a developer, and the lower price will make a purchase less of a risk for a consumer. Developers may prosper out of this as if their game is good, it will build up a fanbase and thus the episodic narrative videogame will flourish.
As it is, 40 quid for a piece of media that could, for all you know, but rubbish, is a lot; especially if its singleplayer and thus likely won't have much replay value. This is the cause of two things I perceive as problems with the gaming industry:
1) The focus on mutliplayer in recent years. People paying $60 for their game want replay value. At a significantly lower price, people will be more willing to fork out for a campaign alone.
2) The sequelitis that increasingly plagues gaming. CoD is du for its 9th instalment, FIFA is into double digits, Final Fantasy is on a number beyond comprehension, by the time it has run its course Halo will probably have at least 9 games under its belt (they plan to make a new trilogy).
In no other medium are people so averse to new IPs and afraid to buy into names they don't know. Lowering the price and decreasing the risk for a single purchase would solve this.
Games don't need to be as long as they are; people complained about the length of Mirror's Edge, when in fact in my opinion it was the perfect length for a single player non-sandbox game. The problem is the price: a full £40 ($60) for a game of this length is ridiculous.
The "$60 model" does have to change, and I think the way forwards is bringing that price down to $30 for around half the playtime (i.e, an episodic game). This will drastically reduce development costs, making arty, interesting and plot-driven games of AAA quality less of a risk for a developer, and the lower price will make a purchase less of a risk for a consumer. Developers may prosper out of this as if their game is good, it will build up a fanbase and thus the episodic narrative videogame will flourish.
As it is, 40 quid for a piece of media that could, for all you know, but rubbish, is a lot; especially if its singleplayer and thus likely won't have much replay value. This is the cause of two things I perceive as problems with the gaming industry:
1) The focus on mutliplayer in recent years. People paying $60 for their game want replay value. At a significantly lower price, people will be more willing to fork out for a campaign alone.
2) The sequelitis that increasingly plagues gaming. CoD is du for its 9th instalment, FIFA is into double digits, Final Fantasy is on a number beyond comprehension, by the time it has run its course Halo will probably have at least 9 games under its belt (they plan to make a new trilogy).
In no other medium are people so averse to new IPs and afraid to buy into names they don't know. Lowering the price and decreasing the risk for a single purchase would solve this.
No idea if that's true, but I don't use Origin so it wouldn't matter anyway.llamastorm.games said:
That's why I love TF2. The huge plethora of weapons, with mostly side-grading as opposed to upgrading (though a few things do pull ahead a bit) someone with the stock weapons can still go toe-to-toe with someone decked out with awesome gear. That means that it's not so simple as pay to win, and even if it was, certain weapons are tied to achievements, and there are non-tradable items.Nouw said:Free-to-play isn't the future, pay-to-win is
I think you are forgetting the demographic of people who need to support families, and that's just one example. Just because you have a job, it does not mean you can easily dish out 60$ every time a game you want releases. Gaming is EXPENSIVE.Das Boot said:
60$ for a lot of people isn't chump change, and just because a few people either make a lot of cash or don't have responsibilities they need to spend cash on, it does not mean that this cash model is working out for everyone. I'm sorry if your idea of what price is acceptable is different from a lot of other people. Some people have other things that they need to spend money on, like clothing themselves, groceries, electricity..
Either you don't have these expenses, or your just rich. And in that case, I envy you.
they'd have more diverse content other then raids after lvl 60, they'd HAVE content for the 60-70 gap. the gear at lvl 60 would be spread out better so it would worth getting, who ever decided that you need 50+ of any RARE drop needs to be shot, they'd fix Lann so he's not the weak link of the team, they'd stop pandering the Evie fanboys, and balance the ***** right (there's a reason i use the Scythe) and i could go on.cursedseishi said:
can't see DFO going over that well on the xbox though, not with as greedy as Microsoft is
