Yep. All I can say is that I'll be enjoying a lot of sales when I get my next gen console in a couple years.
The $70 Price Tag Is Actually Indefensible.
- Thread starter BrawlMan
- Start date
Five minutes in...
Yeah, I seriously doubt gamers care as much about graphics as the AAA publishers would have us believe. It doesn't explain all those pretty successful indie games or the Souls games or Nintendo's continued successes or Minecraft. I never asked for every game to be photorealistic and massive.
I haven't bought a game at sixty dollars in years, and I barely ever did it in the past. AAA price tags usually go down so fast anyway. I find seventy dollars ridiculous.
Yeah, I seriously doubt gamers care as much about graphics as the AAA publishers would have us believe. It doesn't explain all those pretty successful indie games or the Souls games or Nintendo's continued successes or Minecraft. I never asked for every game to be photorealistic and massive.
I haven't bought a game at sixty dollars in years, and I barely ever did it in the past. AAA price tags usually go down so fast anyway. I find seventy dollars ridiculous.
I've never given a shit about graphics. After a point, I just really don't register any change visually. It might be because I'm perpetually playing them on outdated hardware, either my TV or PC and graphics card. In fact the more visually demanding it is, the LESS likely I am to buy it, because odds are good the spirit of my PC will rise up and pimp slap me in retaliation for trying to make it run such a graphic intensive game on a system that can't handle it. I'm almost always scaling down the graphics setting to improve performance.
And even if, on the incredibly rare instance where I am like "Wow, these graphics are REALLY good!" I'm still going to shit on the game if it plays like ass, or the story is terrible. Because I don't care how pretty your shit sandwich is, I'm still not going to want to eat it if it's shit.
Fifteen minutes in...
He might have explained why he bought the 90 dollar deluxe edition of Demon's Souls. Seems like he is part of the problem. The exclusive content looks lame.
He might have explained why he bought the 90 dollar deluxe edition of Demon's Souls. Seems like he is part of the problem. The exclusive content looks lame.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,493
- 3,443
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Its funny he says the customers don't ask for super shiny graphics, when we saw what happened when a next gen game didn't look next gen enough for people with Halo Infinite, they whined and bitched and the game was delayed probably to add more of the next gen bells and whistles that gamers were demanding.
Never played any Halo, but I'm almost dead certain that if Infinite was the funnest one in the series, almost no one would have cared. The game would have spoken for itself upon release. Happens all the time with simpler looking games.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,493
- 3,443
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
It looked like it was going to be one of those fun halo games, the gameplay looks really solid. But people bitched and moaned about its graphics not being good enough.
Halo Infinite Backlash & Graphics Complaints Explained
Fans aren't quite on board with Halo Infinite.
screenrant.com
He's always stated that he's bad with his money, he even says it in this video. How they utilize predatory marketing techniques, to exploit the various human quirks and tendencies, to get as much money out of people as they can. Even if it's not a very ethical thing to do, and in some cases, actually criminal.
The gameplay also looked like ass to be fair. Halo's core design is fundamentally flawed and slow which for an FPS no longer cuts it. With games now being crazy explosions of nonsens like your Call of Duty's, or crazy adrenaline fueled badassery like your Doom's the old tired Halo shit just isn't exciting anymore. And when that game trailer was slow, ugly, and showed us that they're doing absolutely nothing new with the formula and setting....well no wonder people are disappointed. Halo's last attempt at a game was also lack-luster, Halo 5 was not received well and I can't imagine infinite being any different.
Yet another example of Microsoft trying to bank on Nostalgia without actually putting any effort into doing anything new.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,493
- 3,443
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
You might have had a point except no one was complaining about the gameplay. If people were then why did the MCC sell so well and have no one saying anything bad about how it played? No, this was graphics, pure and simple. The gameplay looked just like how you want Halo to play.
He'll never have that divine voice though, the poor unfortunate soul.
I saw complaints about the gameplay. People were upset that the trailer showed nothing new that seemed exciting. Though admittedly graphics are a large part of that since there were no flashy explosions and crazy gun effects or any of that. So perhaps the gameplay complaints just blended in with the graphical ones.
The MCC sold on nostalgia and the hyped ability to play it on modern PC's. Though to be fair the original Halo maps still offer some of the best shooter multiplayer maps ever made. The game was good and is still good. However Halo 5 is nearly dead online play with a playerbase averaging around 500 total according to any tracker stat I can find. (no steam stats for 5).
Halo will still have it's hardcore fanbase, and that'll probably hang around for a while. The 17kish players on steam will likely dive into Halo Infinite.
I still think Infinite is on track to be even worse in the fan's eyes than Halo 5 was.
Maybe they'll put the huge delay to good use.
Graphics are used as a proxy for the game overall quality by people who don't spend multiple hours every week checking news/preview/review/lets play (ie most customer). It's not that good graphic are demanded, its just that its the only way to quickly tell a customer that lots of effort went into the product, in other word its a marketing trick. It's not a good proxy but you're not going to get casual player to spend long time evaluating the pro and con of game when they only play a few hours every week and they're certainly not going to gamble their time on trying indie game which might do neat trick that you need to be hardcore gamer to appreciate (like deconstruction and such.
Anyway, keeping inflation in mind, gaming has become much cheaper over the year. This console generation isn't particularly expensive (a PS5 is about the same price as a PS1 with inflation) and 70$ for a game today is cheaper than game used to be back then. So its very defensible (although you can just wait 2-3 months and most game will go heavily on discount, so if you don't want to pay launch price there's an easy solution).
Anyway, keeping inflation in mind, gaming has become much cheaper over the year. This console generation isn't particularly expensive (a PS5 is about the same price as a PS1 with inflation) and 70$ for a game today is cheaper than game used to be back then. So its very defensible (although you can just wait 2-3 months and most game will go heavily on discount, so if you don't want to pay launch price there's an easy solution).
That's the face of someone who just bought a rare new Boglin.
I'm just gonna say I saw that new Halo trailer and while I've never been a Halo fan, I get what Halo is supposed to look/play like and the trailer for the new game didn't look particularly interesting or impressive in the least. The Gorilla guy was just low hanging fruit for how lame people thought this looked but I doubt it would have gotten as much attention if people had been particularly excited otherwise.
And the MCC was the first time a couple of these games have shown up on PC, which I think is part of the hype, because previously a number of them were XBOX exclusive.
Again, my perspective from someone who played the first Halo on PC and thought "It was okay" so didn't bother to search out the rest, so take it with as much salt as you want.
I agree honestly. I think the price hike isn't much of a big deal because games have been more expensive than $60 for a long time. Either due to microtransactions or collector's editions that are required to get the full game, or even paid DLC chapters that finish the game in general. $70 as a base price for the next console generation is the first price hike we've seen since the PS3 and 360 era, which is a 15 year gap.
Jim makes the argument that wages haven't gone up since, and that's not really true either. Minimum wage has increased in the last 15 years, and while there is an argument to be made that livable wages are becoming more and more rare around the world that isn't exactly related. There is a different argument to make in that regard.
Frankly the cost of a console game is quite fine, and with the increase in size of games these days and the fact that the average gamer doesn't get more than 1 game a month if even that much, it's not really that big of a deal. Plus those strictly opposed to such price hikes can wait a few weeks and get the game at below the current $60 price tag.
I think we are better off paying $70 for a game and being more picky about what games we do buy for that price, than keeping the prices of games at $60 but fill them with loot box bullshit.
And since we all know what EA, Ubisoft and Activision will try to have a $70 price AND Microtransactions, maybe we can all be wiser and not buy those games? Support what deserves it and ignore the rest. Sound like a plan for everyone?
Bah who am I kidding? nothing is gonna change.
