Grumpypants wrote: » It just makes zero difference to me if i get shot by a guy who bought it, compared to getting shot by a guy who got it through gamaplay. The end result is the same. One spent time, one spent money. You could argue the guy spending money invested far less than the guy spending time.
gizmo wrote: » Lucky you, Mario Kart cost me £70 in Virgin on the Quays when I was a kid and Street Fighter II Turbo was £75 in the local Dunnes.
gizmo wrote: » Why do you think games still have essentially the same retail price as they did back in the early 90s though? Development costs have quite obviously risen dramatically. Sales for all but the most mega of hits haven't increased to allow for it either. I mean, we have quantifiable numbers for these things, they can't be just denied. Do you think it may have something to do with the fact that the last time a publisher changed the retail price of a product at launch was when Activision raised the price of Modern Warfare 2 back in 2009, at the time blaming the weak pound and rising development costs, and it generated an absolute ton of bad press which they were dealing with right up to the launch of the game?
GTA V is an odd choice to bring up in this respect too. While the sheer size and quality of the game makes it notable in itself, it's also one of the poster children for the gigantic development costs required for a such a game, the huge marketing costs required to ensure it's in front as many eyeballs as possible and as of this iteration, has seen the addition of a micro-transaction based multiplayer mode that has brought in at least half a billion dollars in additional revenue due to it's active userbase. GTAV wasn't the best example because of the online aspect, its primarily a single player game however, which is why I chose it. Of course not all games require astronomical budgets, I assumed it was obvious that this discussion revolved around the kinds of AAA games which did? Similarly, in attempting to explain the existence of micro-transactions et al in modern games, I can't imagine anyone would argue that the 2D pixel-art based indie title built by a small team is suddenly going to require such invasive systems. The games that can attempt to justify their inclusion are the ones which feature Credits that go on for around the same length as the average blockbuster movie. Since there seems to be some confusion on this subject though, I guess it's important to clarify that no one in their right might should consider the budget of a title to be a primary factor in how good it is nor, and I can't emphasise this enough, does the argument in favour of micro-transactions as a means of off-setting development costs give either a publisher or a developer free reign in compromising the design of the game to allow for them.
Digital Solitude wrote: » Look at GTAV still going for €30+ and people are happy to buy and recommend it at that price, whereas most AAAs aren't worth €10 after 18 months, never mind 4 years. .
Generic Dreadhead wrote: » I remember SNES games being £50 in Smyths Software Zone at "launch", at least Donkey Kong was. Most games now are €70 for the Basic Version and €100 - €120 for the full "experience" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Digital Solitude wrote: » Companies decide how much to invest in games, and set their own prices. Look at GTAV still going for €30+ and people are happy to buy and recommend it at that price, whereas most AAAs aren't worth €10 after 18 months, never mind 4 years. If your game isn't good enough to sell well enough to cover its own costs, that's no ones fault but the Devs or publishers. Including MTs to try make profit your game isn't fit to make on its own is a reflection on the game.
Digital Solitude wrote: » Look at Stardew Valley, The Binding of Issac, Fez and Minecraft. None of them had budgets of millions but were good enough to sell millions of copies and make lots and lots of money for the dev/pub. For bigger examples, FromSoft, R*, Firaxis, Nintendo all make huge AAA games that are top notch, hold value and don't need MTs and grind to help them recoup their investment. The "games cost millions to make" argument is a load of crap, games cost as much as people are willing to invest, great games will make that back through sales alone, lesser ones need crap like MTs, paywalls and P2W situations. I don't even mind lootboxes once their cosmetic, if it affects game play or brings about p2w then I am 100% against it.
Laura Juicy Smokehouse wrote: » One is earned through playing the game, the other is "earned" with money. It makes competitive games unbalanced as those who are willing to pay, get an advantage. Pay 2 win is a terrible idea, from my perspective. Loot boxes are one part of keeping players playing. It's a lazy way to keep people interested in your game.
Grumpypants wrote: » What's the difference to you if someone played and got an item from a loot box earned in game, or they bought a loot box and got the item randomly? Some people have spare money, some have spare time. No one complains about a guy with 600 hours in a game having a better gun. But god forbid he bought it.
Gingervitis wrote: » Oh, they're stupid and weak willed, why can't they be responsible? Or, do we call it for what it is, fostering a gambling addiction? It's a scummy business practice in principle.
death1234567 wrote: » The implementation in Overwatch is close to how it should be done IMO. All players get 1-2 nice cosmetic items free every now and then and if you want specific ones then you can pay for them. The problem in Overwatch is that they are essentially selling scratch cards where you can get lucky and get the item you want but if not you have to buy more. There should just be an individual price for each and you buy the what you want, if you want any, and if you don't it doesn't affect your playing of the game at all.
Gingervitis wrote: » Even in Overwatch, the cosmetic only lootboxes are to my mind, terrible.
Grumpypants wrote: » Gaming is the only entertainment medium where the price to consumer has come down. The cinema is more expensive, football matches, concerts, even a pint etc. I've SNES games on the shelf here with a £69.99 price tag on it. In todays money that is €120-140. Yet you can buy Shadow of War online brand new now for under €45 on console. In this time the cost to make games has gone from thousands into the tens of millions. So when gamers complain about paying "full price" they aren't even doing that. Then they want no season pass as "all DLC should be free", and then they don't want any micro transactions either. It is also hilarious to see the same people who boast about buying keys online so the dev doesnt get any money, moan about devs putting in MTX to try and break even.
The Specialist wrote: » Because it goes everything that makes a game competitive - the guy who spent 600 hours to get a better gun deserves to have that upper hand, allowing people with "spare" cash to completely negate that and just buy it from the off is bull****. I don't care if they have money to burn, advantage should be earned not bought.
SeantheMan wrote: » Overwatch lootboxes are purely cosmetic. They cost what...10euro for 10 or something ? BUT...you get a free lootbox for every level up, and you can get 3 others quite quickly per week by playing in Arcade games. I probably come away with anywhere from 4-7 lootboxes per week. There is never a need to buy it unless you really want. Other games...I really don't like the way they go about them. Micro Transactions are a curse of the gaming world...and have NO PLACE in single player games and little to no place in MP either (if they are anything outside of cosmetic or if they are unobtainable without payment)
