@mrbone That link is dead, unfortunately. But my point still stands that the cost of games HAS risen. Prior to brexit (brexit hasn't actually affected the cost of games, though Nintendo - the cheeky sods - still charge £10+ for their titles, starting at £60-£65. Attempting to take advantage of the situation) games still remained the same, only really affecting household goods and electricals. Computer parts and mobile phones have gotten stupid. But not games, nor consoles.
And development time isn't as long as stated, they do a lot of pre-production (involving writing and re-writes, buying licenses, third party software, etc) which takes up most of the development time. Or spend years in development hell where there's little-to-no development happening. Games such as FFXV, Fallout 3, Diablo 3, Prey that barely survived.
Also, to save time and cost they tend to release the game earlier. Let the community QA test is and patch it later. These trends specifically affect online games. Prime Examples: Battlefield 4, Gears of War 4. Yet they tend to have fully functioning (Day 1) DLC and/or loot boxes upon launch.
Also, Resident evil 1, 2 and Veronica were made 2 years about. And 3 was a major asset flip off of 2 as it was meant to be a spin-off story based on 2, hence why there's a 1 year gap. Similarly with Mortal Kombat 2 and onwards. I appreciate that there's been an advance in videogame technology, but as I said. In terms of development time + costs, and the money made... developers are trying to spend less whilst making more. And how do they do that? By reusing as many assets as possible (or making unnecessary sequels/spin offs. I.E, FFXIII-2/Lightning Returns, the aforementioned Resident Evil 2, Metal Gear Survive)
Oh, and with MTX (the original topic of the debate). They shouldn't be in our games, period. EA have stated (with the SW:BF2 debacle, and now with Anthem) they don't 'need' MTXs, and they won't affect their bottom line. Which means it's just free money they think they're entitled to for low/no effort, whilst abusing predatory practices such as gambling (which has been determined to be aimed at and affect small children).
@mrbone I need to be that guy, but here goes: First off, the inflation argument is BS. Inflation hasn't risen that much, and the cost of games HAS inflated. Currently games cost £50-£60 in the past 5 years they were £40-£50, the past 10 years they were £35-£45, and the past 20 years they were £30-£40. They've basically doubled, atleast here in the UK. And I know they've gone up in price everywhere else too. The percentage may vary.
But. And this is a full-sized, massive capitalized BUT!
They sell more copies. hundreds of thousands to MILLIONS more than they were selling 5, 10, 20 years ago. Plus they're spending less time and money in developing games against how much they make total (without MTX) and how many copies sold. Mainly due to asset flipping on yearly titles, and so on. EA - again - is the biggest offender of this.
So, no. It's not fair. They're not giving you more content. Game time does not equal quantity OR quality of content. Most publishers try to make open world and/or grindy games. Open world gives the illusion of mass content (without having to actually have put much content, or effort into content in. And gameplay/game time is wasted of travel. Issue with Current Ubisoft and Just Cause games, for example). Or grindy games, like Destiny, Star Wars Battle Front 2, so on and so forth. Means playing the same limited content over and over with the hope of a reward of the end. Even through persistence or RNG. Which is where MTX's come in (specifically here) and where these predatory practices are abused.
Comments 2
Re: ANTHEM Microtransaction Controversy Starts Early, BioWare Says Pricing Isn't Finalised
@mrbone That link is dead, unfortunately. But my point still stands that the cost of games HAS risen. Prior to brexit (brexit hasn't actually affected the cost of games, though Nintendo - the cheeky sods - still charge £10+ for their titles, starting at £60-£65. Attempting to take advantage of the situation) games still remained the same, only really affecting household goods and electricals. Computer parts and mobile phones have gotten stupid. But not games, nor consoles.
And development time isn't as long as stated, they do a lot of pre-production (involving writing and re-writes, buying licenses, third party software, etc) which takes up most of the development time. Or spend years in development hell where there's little-to-no development happening. Games such as FFXV, Fallout 3, Diablo 3, Prey that barely survived.
Also, to save time and cost they tend to release the game earlier. Let the community QA test is and patch it later. These trends specifically affect online games. Prime Examples: Battlefield 4, Gears of War 4. Yet they tend to have fully functioning (Day 1) DLC and/or loot boxes upon launch.
Also, Resident evil 1, 2 and Veronica were made 2 years about. And 3 was a major asset flip off of 2 as it was meant to be a spin-off story based on 2, hence why there's a 1 year gap. Similarly with Mortal Kombat 2 and onwards. I appreciate that there's been an advance in videogame technology, but as I said. In terms of development time + costs, and the money made... developers are trying to spend less whilst making more. And how do they do that? By reusing as many assets as possible (or making unnecessary sequels/spin offs. I.E, FFXIII-2/Lightning Returns, the aforementioned Resident Evil 2, Metal Gear Survive)
Oh, and with MTX (the original topic of the debate). They shouldn't be in our games, period. EA have stated (with the SW:BF2 debacle, and now with Anthem) they don't 'need' MTXs, and they won't affect their bottom line. Which means it's just free money they think they're entitled to for low/no effort, whilst abusing predatory practices such as gambling (which has been determined to be aimed at and affect small children).
Re: ANTHEM Microtransaction Controversy Starts Early, BioWare Says Pricing Isn't Finalised
@mrbone I need to be that guy, but here goes: First off, the inflation argument is BS. Inflation hasn't risen that much, and the cost of games HAS inflated. Currently games cost £50-£60 in the past 5 years they were £40-£50, the past 10 years they were £35-£45, and the past 20 years they were £30-£40. They've basically doubled, atleast here in the UK. And I know they've gone up in price everywhere else too. The percentage may vary.
But. And this is a full-sized, massive capitalized BUT!
They sell more copies. hundreds of thousands to MILLIONS more than they were selling 5, 10, 20 years ago. Plus they're spending less time and money in developing games against how much they make total (without MTX) and how many copies sold. Mainly due to asset flipping on yearly titles, and so on. EA - again - is the biggest offender of this.
So, no. It's not fair. They're not giving you more content. Game time does not equal quantity OR quality of content. Most publishers try to make open world and/or grindy games. Open world gives the illusion of mass content (without having to actually have put much content, or effort into content in. And gameplay/game time is wasted of travel. Issue with Current Ubisoft and Just Cause games, for example). Or grindy games, like Destiny, Star Wars Battle Front 2, so on and so forth. Means playing the same limited content over and over with the hope of a reward of the end. Even through persistence or RNG. Which is where MTX's come in (specifically here) and where these predatory practices are abused.
MTXs "Even for cosmetics" are not acceptable.