|
Post by Sarge on Jul 11, 2020 14:22:39 GMT -5
Uuuuuugh. Looks like we're going to get to the point where physical releases are handled by boutique shops like Limited Run. Digital is so anti-consumer as it stands right now. And don't get me wrong, I appreciate digital when it provides an avenue for games that would normally never see a physical release anyway, but less so when it starts being for the massive AAA titles that you'd normally see on the shelf.
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Jul 11, 2020 14:27:44 GMT -5
SargeWe knew this day would come. You and I were preemptively lamenting this future many years ago on RHDN.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jul 11, 2020 14:29:30 GMT -5
Yep. I think I was hoping against hope that folks would wake up, but apparently convenience trumps value. At the very least, give us a GOG-style model. I'm very much willing to give them my business, even for games I actually have on disk!
|
|
|
Post by Xeogred on Jul 11, 2020 20:15:17 GMT -5
I'm going to post this here since it fits what you guys are talking about right now. Maybe some of you have heard the rumblings that 2K is pricing the next gen NBA game at $69.99. People have been speculating for years that the big 70 is coming... I think this take on it is one of the best I've heard so far. The first guy who responds (Alex in the top left) is extremely naive in thinking this will diminish publishers nickel and diming people with DLC and crap. It's the other two older dudes on the right that I think have the far more interesting takes, especially Dan Tack's on the top right... this potential spike might have a weird effect in making people go in even harder on Xbox's Gamepass and other digital services, while flat out buying less games in the future... truly moving towards the idea that people are up for fully relinquishing ownership for games. I think it's scary stuff. I know some here would argue, I don't truly own anything on my Steam account, sure. But streaming games in the Netflix like model and only having them for X amount of time is a whole different thing to me that I don't like at all.
I know inflation is a thing. And we've enjoyed $60 for a very long time. But I think it's insane I tend to see way, way more people in random comments everywhere that are excited at the fact of having to spend MORE money on a single game in the near future. Am I nuts thinking THEY'RE NUTS? If more publishers follow 2K, there will be no turning back.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jul 11, 2020 21:22:11 GMT -5
Xeogred : I wish the move to $70 happened sooner, so that the DLC shenanigans would have not taken hold as much as they have. Or maybe they would have, regardless. Blame your fellow gamers for that - if folks didn't buy that junk, they couldn't sell it. And I'm not talking legitimate, valuable DLC like expansion packs. Those are fine. I'm talking about the ridiculous gacha loot box junk. Or the stupid virtual currency that the NBA2K series has been pushing for years (and in my opinion completely ruins the game).
|
|
|
Post by Xeogred on Jul 11, 2020 21:45:00 GMT -5
Xeogred : I wish the move to $70 happened sooner, so that the DLC shenanigans would have not taken hold as much as they have. Or maybe they would have, regardless. Blame your fellow gamers for that - if folks didn't buy that junk, they couldn't sell it. And I'm not talking legitimate, valuable DLC like expansion packs. Those are fine. I'm talking about the ridiculous gacha loot box junk. Or the stupid virtual currency that the NBA2K series has been pushing for years (and in my opinion completely ruins the game). Well as mentioned NBA2K is the series spearheading the official push to $70 here. I bet you 100 Goomba Bucks the game will still be littered with DLC trash. Regardless if this change happened then or now. Big Western publishers are gonna keep greedin'.
Makes me wonder if Nintendo will stick with $60. But we all know their stuff never goes on sale...
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Jul 11, 2020 21:54:22 GMT -5
apparently convenience trumps value It all boils down to immediate gratification on the consumer side. In addition, most folks consider a video game that's over a year old, to be yesterday's news and dinosaur poop. So with that mindset, the concept of owning a game that can be played offline years later, that doesn't even matter to the average gamer. And publishers love that it doesn't.
All digital = publishers have ALL the power. This is why I'm likely not buying consoles post PS4. Even the PS4 aggravates me, as so many PS4 game discs basically continue the root installation, wherein you still have to download huge data sets and patches to make it a complete game worth playing. There is a growing level of anti-consumerism in this medium, that I'm likely not willing to put up with in the future.
$69.99. People have been speculating for years that the big 70 is coming... I've been smelling whiffs of this incoming pricing tier for a while now. I think it's inevitable. Some argue that with inflation, we use to play $70 or more for video games back in the '90s anyway. Well, that's true, even without inflation, depending on the genre. For example, I paid $74 for FF6 in 1994. And with inflation calculated, $74 becomes $128 in today's money! However, I received a complete game for that $74. FF6 ran perfectly, so it didn't need to be patched. Half the content wasn't cut and reserved for DLC releases. And I didn't need to purchase microtransactional special gear to beat bosses that were impossible otherwise.
Paying $70 in today's money, for a AA/AAA game, is understandable IF we are getting the same level of completion and quality, that we would have gotten in the '90s. But we all know that won't be the case. Publishers will keep up the slimy monetization tactics they already are doing, but with a higher initial barrier of entry cost for the consumer. Win/Win for the publishers, as is the trend these days in this anti-consumer medium.
|
|
|
Post by Xeogred on Jul 11, 2020 22:12:46 GMT -5
They bring up that point about the complete-ness of a game back then vs now, heh. All too true. Give the video a listen. I'm too tired to elaborate better on all this than I am.
Another podcast was pondering, I do wager that modern games go on sale far quicker than how things went in the past. Maybe most people do actually wait for sales nowadays... but publishers could have data that shows those early adopters and initial buyers will probably still fork up an extra $10 regardless. So even if that knocks a few people off of buying right away, the extra spike might balance it out for them.
I hate the thought of $70 being the norm. But pricing has been flexible and all over for the last several years, when the indie boom really started up. If $70 has to become the norm for the first party or AAA stuff, I guess I could be maybe deal with that. Another can of worms though, is that some publishers are touting a "free upgrade" path for cross gen games coming up. Now are they going to make upcoming PS4/X1 games $70 too? Or will this extra $10 be an excuse for the "next gen" version? *shrugs*
If all next gen games are $70, that'll just motivate me further to keep focusing on the PS4, Switch, and PC for my modern gaming needs for longer. Which I'm already leaning towards doing anyways. Demon's Souls Remastered is the only thing that will tempt me greatly to get a PS5 sooner than later, but I can probably otherwise wait on it for a long while.
|
|
|
Post by anayo on Jul 11, 2020 23:00:06 GMT -5
All digital = publishers have ALL the power. This is why I'm likely not buying consoles post PS4. Even the PS4 aggravates me, as so many PS4 game discs basically continue the root installation, wherein you still have to download huge data sets and patches to make it a complete game worth playing. There is a growing level of anti-consumerism in this medium, that I'm likely not willing to put up with in the future.
Not only that, but I think I'm getting really set in my ways what it comes to what does and doesn't enthuse me in video gaming. On one hand I have a Ryzen 5 2600/GTX 1070 PC. The only thing I really use it for is playing Apex Legends with my brother. I have some modern games on steam, but I begin to lose interest in those after playing for just a few hours. On the other hand I also have a Pentium III/Rage 128 Pro PC and I can't stay away from that thing. Its games just excite me more than any games from the past decade. Maybe I'm just starting to fossilize or prefer the things I grew up with because they're familiar or I'm overly sentimental or something, but I can definitely see entering a time when modern gaming just stops being relevant to me and I only play old stuff. I've already sat out on one video gaming generation already (the PS4/XBOX One generation, during which I mostly played Nintendo 3DS).
|
|
|
Post by Ex on Jul 11, 2020 23:41:13 GMT -5
I've already sat out on one video gaming generation already (the PS4/XBOX One generation, during which I mostly played Nintendo 3DS). Ha ha, that's been me as well with the 8th gen, although I play Vita along with the 3DS. I can't stay away from that thing. Its games just excite me more than any games from the past decade. Maybe I'm just starting to fossilize It's tempting to believe someone is just stuck in their ways, when they prefer gaming from older periods of time. But I think that's selling someone's preferences short. The fact is, game design has changed in many ways over the years, for better and for worse. For example, late '90s PC game design is not homogeneously equivalent to '20s PC game design. So does this mean someone is a closed-minded grognard if they prefer a '90s FPS over a '20s FPS? The mental fallacy I find with that sort of thinking, is it automatically assumes newer is better. Well I say newer is NOT always better. We're just culturally conditioned by capitalistic consumerism to believe newer must be better. After all, producers gotta sell that new product right? I'll stop there, because I could rant for paragraphs about artificial perceived demand that ignores past accomplishments. Without going too far down that rabbit hole, I'm just trying to stress that liking older game designs does not mean you're a rigid old man. It could actually mean you have a more refined gaming palate, which simply isn't satiated by so much of the shallow fast food gaming we have shoveled in our faces today.
|
|